Man in His 60s Who Claimed Seoul Halloween Crowd Crush Was a ‘Drug Terror Attack’ Denies Charges at First Trial

[Financial News] The first trial for defendant A, the first person taken into custody after the launch of the Task Force on Secondary Victimization related to the Seoul Halloween crowd crush under orders from President Lee Jae-myung, was held on the 24th. Appearing in court in detention, A actively contested the indictment, asking to speak directly and setting out his position.
Single-Judge Criminal Division 10 of the Seoul Western District Court, presided over by Judge Sung Jun-gyu of the Seoul Western District Court, held the first hearing that morning for A, a 68-year-old man, who has been indicted on charges including defamation of the deceased and violation of the Framework Act on Telecommunications.
According to prosecutors, A repeatedly posted false content on overseas video platforms, domestic online communities, and internet cafes, claiming that the Seoul Halloween crowd crush was fabricated or a planned operation by certain forces, thereby defaming the victims. The posts allegedly included photos of victims and rescue scenes, and in some of them, a donation account was displayed alongside the content.
Prosecutors believe that since 2023 A uploaded hundreds of posts with false claims such as, “They died in a drug terror attack,” “It was not a crush accident but a different incident,” and “The CPR scene looks like a sex doll.”
In the statement of charges, prosecutors stressed that the cause of the Seoul Halloween crowd crush has been determined to be compressive asphyxia due to crowd density, and that numerous investigative findings, court rulings, and media reports support this. Despite this, they argued, A continued to post conspiracy theories. They particularly pointed to the inclusion of a donation account in the posts as evidence of the repetitive and intentional nature of the offense.
A’s side denied the allegations at the hearing. His attorney argued, “The posts did not single out any particular bereaved family or identify specific victims; they merely presented opinions on the cause of the disaster,” claiming that A neither recognized the posts as false nor had intent to defame. The defense also contended that, at the time of posting, the cause of the accident had not been fully clarified, so the legal elements of the crime were not met.
Given an opportunity to speak, A also stated that there were problems with both the description of facts in the indictment and the application of the law. He insisted that his writings were expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact, and argued that the posts cited in the indictment were quoted only in fragments, failing to reflect the full context and intent of the original posts.
After hearing both sides, the court scheduled the next hearing for April 16 and decided to continue the proceedings.
425_sama@fnnews.com Reporter Choi Seung-han Reporter