Active-duty officer stole from unmanned convenience stores 5 times, then sued over demotion — claiming flu drug hallucinations

An active-duty police officer who stole food and alcohol worth about 500,000 won ($332) from unmanned convenience stores on five separate occasions lost a lawsuit challenging his demotion. The officer, identified only as A, argued he had been unable to make rational judgments due to side effects from Tamiflu, an influenza antiviral — but the court rejected the claim.

According to legal sources, the administrative fourth division of Suwon District Court, presided over by Judge Im Su-yeon, ruled against A on May 27 in his suit seeking to overturn the demotion. The court also ordered A to bear the litigation costs.

A, who served in a mobile unit, repeatedly stole from an unmanned convenience store in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province over roughly one month beginning in December 2023. He paid for only some items while placing the rest — without scanning their barcodes — into a cardboard box before leaving. He was found to have stolen soju, beer, fried chicken bites and various snacks.

Prosecutors gave A a deferred indictment in May 2024, acknowledging the charges but deciding the case did not warrant a full trial. While recognizing his culpability, prosecutors noted he had committed the offenses "in a state of weakened impulse control due to depression and panic disorder" and chose not to indict him.

Separately from the criminal proceedings, A was dismissed from the force in June 2024. He appealed the dismissal through an internal review, and the disciplinary committee reduced the punishment to a demotion four months later.

A refused to accept even the demotion. In December 2024, he filed suit seeking to have it overturned.

During the trial, A's legal team argued that he had contracted influenza A at the time of the thefts and was taking Tamiflu, and that side effects — including hallucinations and impaired consciousness — had left him unable to make normal judgments when he committed the offenses. The defense said there had been no intent behind any of the individual acts and therefore no grounds for disciplinary action.

The defense further argued that the demotion was excessively harsh and therefore unlawful, citing the circumstances that led to the offenses, a settlement reached with the victim, and A's 21-year career as a police officer during which he had received multiple commendations.

The court was unconvinced.

The ruling said there was insufficient objective evidence to support the claim that Tamiflu side effects had caused a theft-related impulse control disorder.

The court acknowledged that A appeared to have had weakened impulse control at the time of the offenses, but said that alone was not enough to conclude he had lacked the intent — meaning the awareness and will to act — to commit theft.

Given the method and the number of offenses, the court concluded that A had acted with intent.

The court also found the level of discipline to be lawful. It said A was a police officer whose duties demanded a high degree of law-abidingness and moral integrity, and that the public interest in upholding civil-service discipline and restoring public trust in the police could not be considered lesser than the disadvantage A would suffer from the punishment.

The ruling was confirmed on June 16 after A did not appeal.