South Korean prosecutors have asked a court to sentence the owner of a two-Michelin-starred restaurant to one year in prison for importing and serving ants that are not approved as food ingredients in the country. The restaurant allegedly used about 49,000 ants in more than 12,200 servings over four years.
Prosecutors also requested a 20 million won fine, approximately US$13,500, for the company operating the restaurant. The owner and company were indicted for alleged violations of South Korea’s Food Sanitation Act.
Has the restaurant owner been jailed?
No. The one-year prison term is the punishment requested by prosecutors, not a sentence already imposed.
The request was made during a July 20 hearing at the Seoul Western District Court before Judge Lee Se-chang. The court is scheduled to deliver its ruling on September 2, 2026.
The owner’s identity was withheld in the original Korean court report, which identified the defendant only as “A.” Some international publications have linked the case to a specific Seoul restaurant and chef, but the Korean proceedings did not publicly name the accused.
What did the restaurant allegedly serve?
Prosecutors allege that dried ant products were imported from the United States and Thailand beginning in 2021. The insects were used as garnishes on certain dishes for approximately four years.
One affected item was an ant-topped sorbet served within a 15-course tasting menu. Some chefs use ants to provide a sharp, citrus-like acidity, but their culinary use in other countries does not make them an approved ingredient in South Korea.
The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety reportedly investigated after photographs and descriptions of the dishes appeared in blogs and on social media. The available reports have not connected the restaurant to a confirmed foodborne illness outbreak.
How were the figures calculated?
Prosecutors calculated that ant-containing sorbet was served more than 12,200 times and that approximately 49,000 ants were used. They attributed around 120 million won in revenue to the affected servings.
That amount should not be treated as profit earned solely from selling ants. The garnish formed part of one course in a larger tasting menu, and the defence disputes the number of customers and related revenue.
The charges and arguments presented during the hearing were detailed by SBS News.
Why are ants prohibited in South Korea?
South Korea allows only specifically recognised insects to be sold as food. Ants are not among the 10 approved insect species, a list that includes certain grasshoppers, mealworms, silkworm pupae and crickets.
A restaurant seeking to serve an insect outside that list must first obtain the necessary regulatory approval. Authorities said that process was not completed in this case.
The legal issue is therefore not a general ban on eating insects. It concerns the commercial import and use of an unapproved ingredient.
Reports citing prosecutors have raised concerns about elevated heavy-metal levels in the dried ants compared with approved edible insects. However, court reporting has not identified any diner who became ill, required hospital treatment or suffered confirmed poisoning.
Regulatory action can vary according to the risk involved. During a separate Cyclospora outbreak involving fresh produce, some restaurants removed ingredients because of a potential illness threat.
Read More:
What does the owner say?
The owner admitted most of the alleged conduct but challenged the prosecution’s estimate of how often ants were served.
Defence lawyer Seo Min-seok said customers who refused the garnish did not receive it. The defence claims only about 60 percent of diners accepted the ants, while prosecutors allegedly calculated the total as though every customer consumed them.
Reports indicate that diners who declined could receive alternatives such as fermented vinegar or edible flowers. The defence also emphasised that ants appeared in only a small component of the 15-course meal.
The owner pointed to restaurants in Denmark, the United Kingdom and Australia that use ants as ingredients. The chef reportedly had experience using ants for acidity while working overseas and said he did not realise the practice was prohibited in South Korea.
Could the restaurant lose its Michelin stars?
No Michelin decision has been announced in connection with the case. Michelin recognition concerns dining quality and does not exempt a restaurant from national food-safety rules.
The dispute highlights the risks of importing unconventional ingredients without local approval. Similar compliance problems can arise with unlawfully obtained food, as demonstrated by an Australian restaurant fined over an illegal seafood deal.
The September 2 ruling will determine whether the owner and company are convicted and what penalties will be imposed. The court may also address the disputed customer numbers, optional garnish and revenue calculation.
Make Swikblog your go-to source on Google for reliable updates, smart insights, and daily trends.
