Flowers vanished in bulk from a shop with no cash register and no staff. This is the story of an unmanned flower shop in Seo-gu, Daejeon, which Money Today reported on the 24th, citing a report by JTBC's "Incident Chief." The owner, who has run the shop for ten years and converted it to an unmanned store two years ago, returned from the flower market on August 30 to find that the flowers on display had disappeared wholesale. There was no payment record. CCTV footage showed two middle school students taking off their socks in the shop, chatting, taking pictures of the flowers, and then stuffing the displayed flowers into their bags before leaving. They even took the owner's umbrella, leaving socks and a toy behind in the shop. The loss came to 300,000 won worth of flowers.
The owner reported the incident to the police and also posted captured CCTV images on social media. The next night, an anonymous tip brought a photo from one student's social media account, which the owner handed to the police; that very student then left the comment "that's me" on the owner's post. The other student's mother said she would bring her child in and asked that the video be taken down, then changed her story, and finally announced, "I've given up on the kid. Whether they go to prison or not, I won't take responsibility." The owner decided to file a civil suit, and the police said that because both students are under 14 and thus not criminally punishable, the case would be consolidated with other cases and referred to the juvenile division of the family court.
Three questions overlap in this case. Does a child under 14 really bear no responsibility at all? Who should pay for the flowers? And is the owner who posted the CCTV footage on social media legally safe?
1. The Precise Meaning of a 'Juvenile Under the Age of Criminal Responsibility'
A. No criminal punishment, but the case does not disappear
Article 9 of the Criminal Act provides that the acts of a person under 14 years of age are not punished. This means that no criminal punishment such as imprisonment or a fine can be imposed; it does not mean the act is not a crime or that no proceedings follow. Article 4(1)(ii) of the Juvenile Act provides that a juvenile aged 10 or over but under 14 who commits an act that violates criminal laws is heard as a protective case by the juvenile division, and paragraph (2) of the same Article requires the chief of the police station to refer such a juvenile directly to the competent juvenile division. When the police said they would "refer the case to the juvenile division of the family court," this is the procedure they meant. The mention in the article of "consolidation with other cases" also suggests that this was not the only incident these students were involved in.
B. Protective dispositions imposed by the juvenile division
If, after the hearing, the juvenile division judge finds it necessary, the judge imposes a protective disposition under Article 32(1) of the Juvenile Act. There are ten kinds, ranging from entrusting the juvenile to the custody of a guardian (No. 1), an order to attend a course (No. 2), probation (Nos. 4 and 5), and entrustment to a juvenile protection facility (No. 6), to commitment to a juvenile reformatory (Nos. 8 to 10). Under paragraph (4) of the same Article, an order to attend a course and long-term commitment to a juvenile reformatory may be imposed only on those aged 12 or over, and under paragraph (3), a community service order only on those aged 14 or over. A middle school student is old enough to be committed to a juvenile reformatory. However, paragraph (6) provides that a protective disposition shall have no effect whatsoever on the juvenile's future status, so it does not remain as a criminal record.
C. Had they been 14, it would have been 'special larceny'
Had the two students been 14 or older, even the applicable provision would differ. Larceny under Article 329 of the Criminal Act carries imprisonment for not more than six years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won, but Article 331(2) provides that where two or more persons jointly commit larceny, it is special larceny, punishable by imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than ten years. There is no fine option at all. If the two entered the shop together and divided the flowers between their bags, this is precisely the provision at issue. Three hundred thousand won worth of flowers is not a matter to be taken lightly.
2. Who Pays the 300,000 Won for the Flowers?
A. The student's own liability
Criminal punishment and civil liability are separate. Article 750 of the Civil Act imposes liability for damages on a person who causes harm to another intentionally or negligently, and minors are no exception. However, Article 753 provides that a minor is not liable for damages "when he or she lacks the intelligence to discern the responsibility for the act." This is what is known as capacity for responsibility. Courts do not draw a uniform age line but decide case by case, and in practice a middle school student is often regarded as having the intelligence to know that the act is wrong. If so, the student personally is the one obligated to pay. The problem is that a middle school student has no assets with which to pay.
B. The parents' liability takes two forms
The basis of the parents' liability differs depending on whether the child has capacity for responsibility. If the child lacks it, under Article 755(1) the parents, who have a statutory duty of supervision, are liable for damages, and they are released from liability only if they prove that they did not neglect their duty of supervision. If the child has capacity for responsibility, the parents bear general tort liability under Article 750, in which case the victim must prove the causal link between the parents' breach of their duty of supervision and the damage. The Supreme Court summarized this structure as follows.
Supreme Court Decision 2020Da240021, April 14, 2022Even where a minor has capacity for responsibility and bears tort liability personally, if the damage has a proximate causal relationship with a breach of duty by the person obligated to supervise, that person is liable for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act, and the parents of a minor who lives with them and depends on them economically bear a duty of protection and supervision to provide general, day-to-day guidance and advice so that the child does not commit torts against others.
The same decision also held that a parent who, following a divorce, is neither the person with parental authority nor the custodian does not bear a duty of supervision merely by virtue of being a parent. This is why one must check the family relationships first when deciding whom to sue. The mother's words in the article, "I've given up on the kid," may have been an expression of emotion, but legally they are only evidence that she set down her duty of supervision of her own accord; they are not words that release her from liability.
C. Scope of compensation and joint liability
The scope of compensation covers the 300,000 won for the flowers, the price of the umbrella, and any other proven property damage. Because the two students committed the act together, they are jointly liable under Article 760(1) of the Civil Act, and the victim may claim the full amount from either of them. Since courts take the position that consolation money for property damage is difficult to award absent special circumstances, it is better to set out the actual loss accurately item by item in the claim.
3. Is the Owner Who Posted the CCTV Footage on Social Media in the Clear?
A. Portrait rights do not vanish even for an offender
It is now common for victims to post footage of the offense to publicize their grievance. But the law examines this act separately. Everyone has a portrait right not to have their face photographed or published without consent, and that right does not disappear because the person is a larceny suspect. The Supreme Court set out the standard as follows.
Supreme Court Decision 2020Da227455, April 29, 2021An unjust infringement of portrait rights and the privacy of private life constitutes a tort and is not justified merely because it took place in a public place or was for the purpose of gathering evidence. However, where the matter is a subject of legitimate public concern, serves the public interest, and the content and method of expression are not improper, illegality may be negated, and the person asserting that the act is not unlawful bears the burden of proving it.
Measured against this standard, submitting the CCTV footage to the police poses no problem. Posting it on social media, where an unspecified number of people can see it, with a minor's face identifiable, is a different matter. Even if the need to find the offender is recognized, if the purpose could have been achieved by blurring the face, the owner is at a disadvantage on the "appropriateness of the method." Moreover, where the other party is under 14, the value of the interest to be protected is weighed even more heavily.
B. Defamation can be punished even when the facts are 'true'
Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act punishes a person who defames another by publicly alleging facts with imprisonment or imprisonment without labor for not more than two years or a fine not exceeding 5 million won. It is a crime that is established even if the alleged content is true. If posted online, Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection applies, and if there is an intent to disparage, the penalty rises to imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won. Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that an allegation of true facts made solely in the public interest is not punished, and the courts have consistently held that an intent to disparage and the public interest are difficult to reconcile. If the purpose was to warn other unmanned-store owners, there is room to argue public interest. But if the post mixed in ridicule or speculation about the students' identities and even exposed their faces, that room narrows. Under paragraph (3) of the same Article, this offense cannot be prosecuted if the victim expresses a wish not to have the offender punished, and in practice it does happen that the offender's side in a larceny case turns around and files a complaint.
C. The perspective of the Personal Information Protection Act
A store's CCTV is installed for crime prevention and facility safety as permitted under Article 25(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Personal Information Protection Act, and paragraph (5) of the same Article prohibits manipulating the device for a purpose different from the purpose of installation or pointing it elsewhere. Because the recorded footage is personal information, providing it to a third party beyond the purpose of collection is in principle restricted under Article 18, and paragraph (2)(vii) of the same Article permits provision for criminal investigation. Here again lies the difference between handing the footage to an investigative agency and posting it on social media.
4. What Unmanned-Store Owners and Students' Parents Should Do Now
A. If you are the store owner
First, preserve payment records and the original CCTV footage by date and report immediately. Submitting the footage to the police is sufficient; if disclosure is truly necessary, blur the faces and physical features and state only the facts of the offense plainly. Second, referral to the juvenile division means the criminal proceedings have taken a different route, not that compensation is over. Because Article 70 of the Juvenile Act bars agencies involved in a juvenile protection case from responding to inquiries for purposes other than trial or investigation, it becomes difficult to confirm the offender's identity later. Realistically, secure the parents' contact details at the police stage and attempt a settlement. Third, if no settlement is reached, file a claim for damages naming both the student and the parents as defendants. Given the small amount, it will proceed as a small-claims case, and under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act it must be filed within three years from the date the damage and the offender became known.
B. If you are the student's parent
A protective disposition is decided in light of the juvenile's remorse and efforts to repair the harm. Promising to visit and then breaking that promise is the worst choice both in the juvenile division hearing and in the civil suit that follows. Keep a record of having compensated the loss and apologized, and if a post remains in which the child's face is identifiable, politely request its removal, but it is best not to try to trade that request for the compensation.
5. Closing
An unmanned store is a form of business that stands on the conscience of customers and the trust of the owner, and when that trust is broken, the first thing the owner reaches for is social media. But the law places the victim's anger and the offender's rights on separate scales. The term "juvenile under the age of criminal responsibility" does not mean there is no responsibility; it means the path for holding the child responsible is different, and that path runs through the juvenile division and the civil courts. Victims should never become offenders themselves for not knowing that path, nor should parents be able to shift their child's share onto others with the words "I've given up on the kid."
(Shin Dong-woo, Managing Partner, DAEON Law Firm)
This column provides general legal information based on Korean statutes and court decisions as of 2026. 10. 26.. It is not legal advice on any individual case.
2026. 10. 26. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail