'We're a party of four — why only one ice cream?' Customer who threw 10-minute tantrum fined

A customer who caused a 10-minute scene at a restaurant after receiving one complimentary ice cream instead of four through a receipt-review promotion has been fined 700,000 won ($523), with the penalty now final.

According to legal sources Friday, Seoul Southern District Court's Criminal Division 2-2, presided over by Judge Kim Ji-suk, upheld the 700,000 won fine in August and dismissed the defendant's appeal, confirming the first-instance sentence.

The defendant, identified only as A, was charged in August last year with obstructing business at a restaurant in Seoul.

The incident began over a receipt-review promotion. According to facts established by the court, A had participated expecting to receive four ice creams — one per person in the party. The restaurant owner, however, said only one ice cream was provided per review submitted. A became enraged and got into an argument with the owner.

With other diners present, A followed the owner around the restaurant as the owner attended to customers and managed the counter, filming with a mobile phone. Even as the owner tried to stop A, A loudly declared the need to "teach the owner a lesson," continuing the disruption for about 10 minutes, according to the investigation.

A was subsequently charged with obstruction of business but denied the charges throughout the proceedings. A argued the conduct amounted to nothing more than defensive remarks and was not intended to interfere with the owner's business. A also claimed the filming was done to objectively document the time of entry and food service, and denied any intent to obstruct business operations.

The court rejected those arguments.

The trial court found A guilty in March and imposed a fine of 700,000 won.

The court noted that CCTV footage and video recorded by A showed no clear reason why A needed to film the owner. "Nevertheless, A went beyond the bounds of ordinary protest — following the victim around and redirecting the camera to keep filming," the court said.

The court added that A's behavior had significantly hindered the owner's ability to process payments and attend to customers, and that other diners had looked over toward A during the incident, indicating they were disturbed.

Taking all circumstances into account, the court found that A's conduct "constituted a show of force sufficient to overcome another person's free will," and that A had acted with the requisite intent to obstruct business.

On sentencing, the court said it had considered the extent and duration of the obstruction and the surrounding circumstances. It noted as a mitigating factor that A had no prior criminal record beyond two previous fines.

A appealed, but the appellate court also found the lower court's judgment sound.

The appellate court noted that A had filmed the owner at the counter while saying "filming is not illegal," and that the owner had repeatedly asked A to put the phone away and stop recording — requests A ignored, continuing to follow the owner around the restaurant.

The court further noted that A had declared in the restaurant hallway, with the owner standing directly in front, the need to "teach the owner a lesson," and that A's own spouse had tried on multiple occasions to restrain A.

Reviewing CCTV footage from the restaurant and video recorded on A's phone, the appellate court found that A had filmed the owner and made loud noises for approximately 10 minutes. It concluded that the conduct had substantially interfered with the owner's ability to handle payments and serve customers, and that other diners had been visibly uncomfortable.

The court determined that A "had exercised a level of force sufficient to disrupt other diners' meals and the owner's business operations," and that the trial court's ruling to that effect was justified.

On the sentence itself, the appellate court said the trial court had adequately weighed the various sentencing factors A had raised, and that the fine could not be considered so heavy as to fall outside a reasonable range.

The ruling is now final. Neither the prosecution nor A filed a further appeal against the second-instance decision.