Chinese Attack a Chinese Restaurant… in Korea
Four Chinese nationals
illegally entered a Chinese restaurant in Seohyeon-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam, at around 2:40 a.m. on the 24th,
smashed equipment,
sprayed lacquer and paint,
and poured what is believed to be pesticide on the food ingredients before fleeing the scene.
When there is no direct contact
between the suspect and the victim,
I have heard that it can sometimes be difficult to determine the motive behind the crime.
But
in this case, the motive appeared to be very clear.
Because the name of the Chinese restaurant was
Xi Jinping.
That’s right.
I can understand that some Chinese people may have a strong sense of loyalty toward their country’s president,
but still,
coming to another country and doing something like this makes you wonder what exactly should be blamed for such behavior.
Of course, they will probably come up with the absurd argument that
the restaurant owner who chose that name in the first place is the real problem.
Anyway, this was not the first time something like this had happened to the restaurant.
It had been in business for about eight years,
so it was a well-established restaurant that had been operating at the same location for quite some time.
The owner said
there had been smaller incidents before, such as people damaging the sign and running away,
but starting around the time of last year’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit,
the restaurant began receiving phone calls and visits demanding that the name be changed.
There were even offers of money, according to the owner.
He could have just added another “Ping” to the name for the money..
Something like Xi Jinping Ping,
or maybe Ping Ping Ping..
Anyway, investigators believe that this crime was clearly deliberate.
That’s because the owner had planned to close the restaurant from the 24th to the 26th for the Chuseok holiday,
and the crime took place on the very first day of the planned closure, after the closure had already been announced.
The movements of the four suspects
also add weight to the possibility that this crime was carefully planned.
They had never visited South Korea before, but entered the country twice between late August and mid-September,
and investigators also found evidence that the four of them had been staying together at a motel in Seoul.
What’s more,
immediately after committing the crime, they took a taxi back to the motel in Seoul where they had been staying, picked up their luggage,
and headed straight to Incheon International Airport.
They are known to have then left South Korea on flights bound for Yantai and Shanghai in China.
For now, the charges they may face include
| Category | Property Damage | Trespassing |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Article 366 of the Criminal Act | Article 319 of the Criminal Act |
| Conduct | Damaging another person’s property or impairing its function or usefulness | Entering another person’s residence or a building under another person’s management without permission |
| Application to this case | Spraying paint and lacquer inside the restaurant and damaging equipment and food ingredients | Entering the restaurant during the early morning hours while it was closed |
| Maximum penalty | Up to 3 years in prison or a fine of up to 7 million won | Up to 3 years in prison or a fine of up to 5 million won |
| If committed jointly by four people | Each person may be punished as a joint principal offender depending on their degree of participation | Each person may be punished as a joint principal offender depending on their degree of participation |
| Key issue | Whether the property’s actual function or usefulness was impaired | Whether entering the restaurant constituted an intrusion against the wishes of the person managing it |
are the charges that may apply.
The problem is that they have already left the country.
You might say, “So what? Since the crime was committed in South Korea, South Korea can request their extradition based on territorial jurisdiction,”
but it is not necessarily that simple.
China’s Extradition Law states the following.
The Extradition Law of the People’s Republic of China (中华人民共和国引渡法)
Article 8 Where a foreign country requests extradition from China, extradition shall be refused if any of the following circumstances apply.
Paragraph 1: Under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, the person whose extradition is requested is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China.
In other words, a conflict could arise between the two countries.
South Korea: Since the crime was committed in South Korea, South Korea has jurisdiction under the principle of territorial jurisdiction, so please extradite them.
China: We understand that the crime was committed in South Korea, but because the suspects are Chinese citizens, we refuse extradition under China’s Extradition Law.
If such a conflict arises,
China may ask South Korea to provide clear evidence and other materials,
and the matter could potentially end with China saying that it will prosecute them under Chinese law instead.
And if the punishment imposed by China
ends up being little more than a slap on the wrist,
(In fact, that possibility may not be particularly low. After all, no one was physically injured.)
the consequences
could be much greater than the seriousness of this individual incident, and that is something we should clearly keep in mind.
It could even lead Chinese nationals to develop the idea that
“If you commit a crime in South Korea and then return to China, you can avoid South Korea’s judicial process.”
That would be a very serious problem.