Most Popular
-
1
Dongduk Women’s University halts coeducation talks
-
2
Defense ministry denies special treatment for BTS’ V amid phone use allegations
-
3
Russia sent 'anti-air' missiles to Pyongyang, Yoon's aide says
-
4
OpenAI in talks with Samsung to power AI features, report says
-
5
Two jailed for forcing disabled teens into prostitution
-
6
South Korean military plans to launch new division for future warfare
-
7
Gold bars and cash bundles; authorities confiscate millions from tax dodgers
-
8
Trump picks ex-N. Korea policy official as his principal deputy national security adviser
-
9
Kia EV9 GT marks world debut at LA Motor Show
-
10
Teen smoking, drinking decline, while mental health, dietary habits worsen
Call for justice over trees ‘poisoned’ near Starbucks drive-thru
By Yoon Min-sikPublished : Jan. 28, 2022 - 14:17
A local environmental group is calling for justice after three roadside trees were allegedly killed by poisoning in Seoul last July near a new drive-through outlet of Starbucks.
The Korea Federation for Environmental Movements’ Seoul Branch on Thursday held a press conference at the site, decrying the state prosecution’s decision not to press charges against the person who admitted to having mistakenly poured pesticides.
“The (accused) has already admitted to spilling the pesticides and paid 7.8 million won ($6,470) in compensation. What more evidence could one ask for?” the group said, wrapping black ribbons around trees near where the incident had occurred in protest and condolence. “It is beyond comprehension that (the prosecutors) decided to cover up the case instead of uncovering the truth, when there is a clear killer.”
On Tuesday, the Seoul Seobu District Prosecutor’s Office dropped the case against the person, who is the manager of a building near the dead trees, citing lack of evidence for indictment.
The group went on to hold Starbucks Korea responsible, on grounds that the incident occurred during the construction of a Starbucks drive-through store. It claimed that there are “suspicions” that the person killed the trees on purpose so they would not cover up the Starbucks signs, despite the person not being the coffee shop’s employee.
Despite the group’s claims, there appear to be little legal grounds to punish the person as of now. The accused claimed to have spilled the chemicals by mistake. Property damage, if unintended, is not punishable by criminal law. The prosecution did not see enough evidence to prove his criminal intent in killing the trees.
The environmental group raised doubts about whether the investigators had thoroughly looked into suspicions. Instead, the group claimed the investigators brushed it off as a mere property damage case.
“There were so many trees that were killed and cut off without us knowing. This incident has opened our eyes to the value of roadside trees near us ... The culprit should have been brought to justice so that such reckless killings of trees don’t happen again.”
The Korea Federation for Environmental Movements’ Seoul Branch on Thursday held a press conference at the site, decrying the state prosecution’s decision not to press charges against the person who admitted to having mistakenly poured pesticides.
“The (accused) has already admitted to spilling the pesticides and paid 7.8 million won ($6,470) in compensation. What more evidence could one ask for?” the group said, wrapping black ribbons around trees near where the incident had occurred in protest and condolence. “It is beyond comprehension that (the prosecutors) decided to cover up the case instead of uncovering the truth, when there is a clear killer.”
On Tuesday, the Seoul Seobu District Prosecutor’s Office dropped the case against the person, who is the manager of a building near the dead trees, citing lack of evidence for indictment.
The group went on to hold Starbucks Korea responsible, on grounds that the incident occurred during the construction of a Starbucks drive-through store. It claimed that there are “suspicions” that the person killed the trees on purpose so they would not cover up the Starbucks signs, despite the person not being the coffee shop’s employee.
Despite the group’s claims, there appear to be little legal grounds to punish the person as of now. The accused claimed to have spilled the chemicals by mistake. Property damage, if unintended, is not punishable by criminal law. The prosecution did not see enough evidence to prove his criminal intent in killing the trees.
The environmental group raised doubts about whether the investigators had thoroughly looked into suspicions. Instead, the group claimed the investigators brushed it off as a mere property damage case.
“There were so many trees that were killed and cut off without us knowing. This incident has opened our eyes to the value of roadside trees near us ... The culprit should have been brought to justice so that such reckless killings of trees don’t happen again.”
