Michelin Restaurant Owner Faces Jail for Serving 49,000 Ants: What Happened

South Korean prosecutors are seeking a one-year prison sentence for the owner of a two-Michelin-starred Seoul restaurant accused of serving approximately 49,000 ants that were not approved as food ingredients. The request is not a final sentence: the Seoul Western District Court is expected to deliver its ruling on September 2, 2026.

Prosecutors also requested a 20 million won fine, equivalent to about US$13,500, for the company operating the restaurant. The owner and corporate entity were charged with alleged violations of South Korea’s Food Sanitation Act.

Has the Michelin restaurant owner been jailed?

No. The restaurant owner has not been sentenced to prison. Prosecutors requested the one-year term during a July 20 hearing presided over by Judge Lee Se-chang.

The court can accept, reduce or reject the requested punishment when it issues its decision. Until then, claims that the chef has already received a one-year sentence would be inaccurate.

Korean court reporting identified the defendant only as “A.” International publications have linked the proceedings to Australian chef Joseph Lidgerwood and his Seoul restaurant Evett, but the primary SBS court report did not publicly name the accused.

Why were 49,000 ants allegedly served?

According to prosecutors, dried ant products were imported from the United States and Thailand beginning in 2021. The insects were offered as a garnish on sorbet included in a 15-course tasting menu over approximately four years.

Some chefs use ants because their natural acidity can add a sharp, citrus-like flavour. Their use in overseas restaurants, however, does not automatically make them an authorised ingredient under South Korean law.

Prosecutors calculated that ant-topped sorbet was served more than 12,200 times, with an estimated four ants used per serving. That produced the widely reported total of approximately 49,000 ants.

Why are ants not approved as food in South Korea?

South Korea permits 10 recognised insect species to be commercially sold for human consumption. Ants are not included on that list and cannot be served without completing the required food-safety approval process.

This does not mean every insect is prohibited. The legal question is whether the restaurant imported and commercially used a product that regulators had not approved as food.

Approval rules allow authorities to assess sourcing, contamination, allergens and other safety concerns before an unfamiliar ingredient is offered to customers. Restaurant recognition and overseas culinary practices do not override those requirements.

Food businesses may take different precautions when ingredients present potential safety concerns. During a separate Cyclospora investigation involving fresh produce, some restaurants temporarily changed their menus while authorities searched for the source.

Why does the defence dispute the figures?

The owner admitted most of the alleged conduct but challenged the prosecution’s estimate of how many customers received the garnish.

Defence lawyer Seo Min-seok said ants were offered as an option and were not served to customers who refused them. The defence claims only about 60 percent of diners accepted the garnish, with between one and five ants provided according to preference.

Alternatives reportedly included fermented vinegar or edible pollen. Lawyers also stressed that the sorbet was only one part of a much larger tasting menu.

Prosecutors connected approximately 120 million won in revenue to the disputed servings. The defence argues that this should not be treated as money earned solely from ants because customers purchased the complete 15-course experience.

Details of the requested sentence, alleged serving numbers and September ruling date were reported by SBS News.

What could happen after the September 2 ruling?

The court will decide whether the owner and operating company are guilty and what penalties should apply. Its decision may clarify how the optional garnish and disputed customer count affect the final punishment.

A conviction could encourage restaurants using unconventional imported ingredients to conduct stricter approval and supplier checks. Businesses must confirm that every product is legally sourced and recognised as food in the country where it is served.

No change to the restaurant’s Michelin status has been announced. Michelin recognition and compliance with national food laws are separate matters, so any guide-related consequence would require an independent decision from Michelin.

The case carries a broader lesson for commercial kitchens: unusual ingredients require the same regulatory checks and traceable supply records as conventional products. Similar compliance questions emerged when an Australian restaurant faced penalties over allegedly unlawful seafood.

The next important update is expected on September 2. After the judgment, the article should be revised promptly to report the actual verdict instead of continuing to describe only the prosecution’s request.