Mario Outlet Chairman Hong Seong-yeol, who was indicted on charges of swearing at employees in the presence of others, was sentenced to a fine.
On the 31st, the 1st Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Noh Tae-ak) confirmed the original trial ruling that sentenced Chairman Hong, who was indicted on contempt charges, to a fine of 3 million won in the appeal trial.
At approximately 11:20 a.m. on September 8, 2019, Chairman Hong is accused of swearing at employee A and others at the tourist farm he runs, saying, “Hey you bastards, you bastards, you bastards, quit right now and go away먹튀검증.” was handed over to trial. It was revealed that Chairman Hong swore in the presence of other employees because the landscaping staff did not quickly remove a willow tree that had fallen in a flower garden due to the effects of the typhoon.
On the same day, at around 1:30 p.m., at the farm’s outdoor barbecue area, he saw a tent left messy on a customer’s table and swore at an employee, saying things like, “Hey, you bastard, are you a gardener?” and “Try to find another job, you bastard.” . Chairman Hong was found to have continued to swear during dinner, saying, “You eat like a pig, get out of here, you bastards,” and “You look like a cow thief, so you can’t work.”
The court issued a summary order to impose a fine of 2 million won on Chairman Hong, but Chairman Hong, who refused to comply, requested a formal trial. The first trial sentenced the defendant to a fine of 3 million won, saying, “Despite the victims’ screaming statements, the defendant consistently lies and does not reflect on his mistakes at all.”
The second trial also dismissed Chairman Hong’s appeal, saying, “There are no circumstances to believe that the victims filed a false complaint aiming for settlement money, and the defendant has still not been forgiven by the victims.”
On this day, the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal, saying, “There was no error in the original trial’s judgment that violated the rules of logic and experience, exceeded the limits of free deliberation, or misunderstood the legal principles of legitimate conduct.”