A man in his 30s, charged with posting comments online suggesting arson at the Constitutional Court following the issuance of an arrest warrant for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, has been acquitted again in an appellate trial.

View of Suwon District Court and Suwon High Court [Yonhap News]

According to legal circles on the 21st, the 4th Criminal Division of the Suwon District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Hee-seok) upheld the lower court's acquittal and dismissed the prosecution's appeal in the sentencing hearing for "A," who was charged with intimidation and attempted intimidation.

Following the issuance of an arrest warrant for former President Yoon on January 18 last year, "A" was accused of posting content online seven times suggesting arson at the Constitutional Court. This included a post titled, "It would be good to set fire to the Constitutional Court if possible without entering," with the text, "Arson seems to be the most stable method."

He was also charged with inciting the murder or assault of police officers responsible for managing assemblies and demonstrations on 10 occasions, including a post titled, "Bring defensive tools; if the police use violence, beat them to death with a hammer," which stated, "It is self-defense. You can neutralize police by attacking their eyes with lacquer."

The court ruled, "The content of the posts does not clearly specify the subjects intended to be directly harmed," adding, "It is difficult to view these threats against the general public as having a sufficiently close relationship to cause fear in the individual victims."

The court further noted, "The fact that the crime of public intimidation was newly added to the Criminal Act on March 18 last year serves as evidence that such cases could not be punished under existing intimidation laws," and pointed out, "Applying the intimidation law to this case would pervert a law intended to protect an individual’s freedom of decision-making into a tool for maintaining public order."

Previously, the first-instance court also acquitted "A," stating that his posts were closer to expressions of ridicule or anger, and that he did not use methods such as mail, through which the messages could have been directly delivered to the victims.