Hundreds of ice cream bars thrown at police headquarters over disabled men's theft charge

"It is far too harsh and unjust to treat two people with developmental disabilities as having conspired to steal a single ice cream bar."

Hundreds of ice cream bars blanketed the pavement outside the Korean National Police Agency in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, on Tuesday morning.

The scene unfolded after two men in their 30s with severe developmental disabilities were referred to prosecutors on aggravated theft charges for sharing a 1,500-won ice cream bar they had not paid for at a convenience store — a case that has ignited a fierce debate over whether police exercised their authority appropriately. About 150 family members of people with developmental disabilities and civic group members hurled ice cream bars toward the police building in protest.

Police say they had no discretion to close the case once the legal elements of aggravated theft under the Criminal Act were met. The men's families, however, argued the investigation was a mechanical application of the law that failed to account for the specific circumstances of the case.

Experts said the incident exposed a gap between the principle of strict legal enforcement and public sentiment, but cautioned that expanding police discretion as a remedy could invite fresh disputes over fairness and would require careful deliberation.

According to police, Hwang, 34, and Choi, 33 — both men with severe developmental disabilities — took a Melona ice cream bar from a convenience store in Busan on June 10 without paying, shared it and left.

A witness who saw the two adult men leave without paying tipped off the store owner, who reported the incident to police. Officers reviewed closed-circuit television footage and identified the two men.

After learning what had happened, the families visited the store owner to apologize and paid 100,000 won ($68) in compensation — about 60 times the price of the ice cream bar. The owner, upon hearing the circumstances, said he did not want the men punished.

Police, however, pressed on with the investigation as required by procedure.

Article 331 of the Criminal Act defines aggravated theft as stealing another person's property while carrying a dangerous weapon or acting in concert with one or more other persons. The offense is not among those that cannot be criminally prosecuted when the victim does not wish to press charges, nor does it carry a fine as a sentencing option.

During the investigation, police sought to determine how the men came to take the ice cream bar and whether they had conspired with each other or whether one had directed the other.

Both men, however, have a first-grade intellectual disability, making communication itself difficult.

Police said the CCTV footage gave no indication that the two were people with developmental disabilities, and that during the investigation it was objectively difficult to determine whether they had been aware that their actions constituted theft.

Police referred the two men to prosecutors on aggravated theft charges without detaining them. Prosecutors, after receiving the case, acknowledged the facts of the offense but noted it was a first offense and decided to suspend indictment, taking into account that the victim did not wish to press charges.

The case was formally closed with a suspended indictment, but the families were far from satisfied.

A suspended indictment does not result in a criminal record, but it is logged in investigative history files and can be used against a person as an aggravating factor if they commit the same or a similar offense in the future.

Hwang's father, who spoke outside the Korean National Police Agency, said his son "has the cognitive and communication abilities of a toddler," adding: "The state power that should protect the vulnerable is instead tightening its grip around the necks of the most helpless and innocent people in the world."

The Korea Disabled People's Parents Association, which joined the family at the rally, condemned "the police's excessive application of the law without regard for the cognitive capacity of the person with a developmental disability or the scale of the harm," and called for measures to prevent a recurrence.

The group also raised concerns that while regulations require people with developmental disabilities to be questioned by dedicated investigators, one of the two suspects in this case was interviewed by a general investigator.

They further noted that the minor-offense review committee, which examines cases for possible dismissal, was never convened because aggravated theft falls outside its jurisdiction — leaving no opportunity for the specific circumstances of the case to be considered.

The association submitted a set of demands to the Korean National Police Agency that day, calling for accountability for those responsible and a formal apology; the involvement of dedicated investigators and professional support persons from the earliest stage of cases involving people with developmental disabilities; priority review by the minor-offense committee for small-value cases involving socially vulnerable individuals; and mandatory in-person training for police officers on understanding developmental disabilities.

Experts agreed that the enforcement in this case fell short of what the public would consider reasonable, but said expanding police discretion to address the problem would require careful handling.

Kim Hyeong-won, an attorney at law firm YK, said that once an offense is established, applying the law according to the facts is in principle unavoidable. "There have been cases, such as the recent Jang Yun-gi murder case, where police applied charges arbitrarily in a way that did not match the facts and caused far greater problems as a result," he said. "I believe the mechanical application of the law in this case was also unavoidable."

Kim added, however, that the case "illustrates the gap between public legal sentiment and the current system," and that while it might be possible to grant police a limited referral-deferral mechanism equivalent to prosecutors' power to suspend indictment, or to recognize similar discretionary authority, "that would need to be approached with great caution."

Kim Bong-su, a professor at Chonnam National University School of Law, said that while some cases — like this one — appear to warrant closure at the police stage, "discretion is a double-edged sword." He said that once exceptions are recognized for offenses such as aggravated theft that legally require investigation, the same logic could be applied to other cases, creating fairness problems and making it harder to guard against misuse or abuse.

Police maintained that the investigation was unavoidable under current law, but acknowledged falling short in involving professional support persons during the questioning of the men with developmental disabilities and in fully explaining the investigative process to the families.

A police official said it was "inconceivable" that officers had deliberately tried to criminalize the two men. "There is also the burden of knowing that exercising discretion not provided for in law could itself constitute abuse of authority or distortion of the law," the official said.

The official added: "We should have conducted the investigation with an expert present and explained more thoroughly to the parents why the aggravated theft charge applied — that part was lacking. We are reflecting on this internally in the wake of what happened."