Quick access to top menu Direct access to main contents Quick access to page bottom
Subscribe and receive updates

Part-time Worker Sentenced for Canceling 239 Delivery Orders

A part-time worker who repeatedly canceled delivery orders from a store and arbitrarily changed the store’s operating status to “temporarily suspended” has been found guilty.

According to the legal community, on the 20th, the Busan District Court Eastern Support Criminal 3 Single (Judge Kim Joo Young) sentenced a woman in her 20s who was charged with obstruction of business to one year in prison with a two-year suspended sentence.

A part-time worker who repeatedly canceled delivery orders from a store and arbitrarily changed the store’s operating status to “temporarily suspended” has been found guilty. This image is unrelated to the article. [Photo=pexels]

The woman was brought to trial on charges of obstructing the restaurant’s operations where she worked as a part-time worker from March 1, 2021, to July 26 of the same year.

During her shift, she canceled delivery orders received by the store a whopping 239 times, resulting in approximately $4,000 in damages to the store.

She also obstructed the store’s operations by arbitrarily changing the store’s operating status to “temporarily suspended” within the delivery application 60 times during the same period.

During the police investigation, she claimed, “At the time, I was not feeling well and was receiving medical treatment. I asked the owner if I could rest, but they told me to come to work, so I set it to “temporarily suspended” and rested.”

Additionally, she argued, “I canceled orders when a customer called to cancel an order when ingredients were spoiled or missing when there were too many deliveries while I was working alone, when a customer was on the blacklist, or when the weather was bad.”

A part-time worker who repeatedly canceled delivery orders from a store and arbitrarily changed the store’s operating status to “temporarily suspended” has been found guilty. This image is unrelated to the article. [Photo=Jeong So Hee]

However, the court ruled, “The defendant has failed to submit any evidence to substantiate her claims, and there are no reports to the victimized business owner, making it difficult to see that the defendant canceled deliveries for legitimate reasons.”

Continuing, “The defendant has not acknowledged her wrongdoing and has not received forgiveness from the victim. Furthermore, the defendant’s actions significantly undermine the general trust of consumers in restaurants, causing considerable damage,” the court pointed out.

+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
inews24's Profile image

Comments0

300

Comments0

Share it on

adsupport@fastviewkorea.com