A Father Who Beat His Child for Secretly Spending Holiday Allowance, and the Child Who Pleaded for Leniency Saying "I Love You"

Fine Imposed on Father Who Hit 11-Year-Old Son for Lying About Holiday Allowance
"I Love You, Dad" Statement Helps Avoid Physical Restraint Sentence

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] On the 23rd, a day before the Lunar New Year holiday begins, a story between a father and son regarding holiday pocket money is drawing attention.

According to the legal community on this day, Judge Kim Taek-hyung of the Suwon District Court Criminal Division 13 recently sentenced A (57), who was indicted last November on charges of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), to a fine of 1 million won.

A was charged with physically abusing his then 11-year-old son B twice on October 9, 2017. He broke branches and struck B’s face several times because B secretly spent the pocket money he received during Chuseok and lied about it. Afterwards, he also inflicted violence by hitting B’s calves with a back scratcher, his face with his hand, and his abdomen with his fist in his officetel. Police investigations revealed that A had frequently beaten and abused B prior to this incident. In court, A claimed it was a disciplinary process, but Judge Kim ruled that "there is no objective validity in social norms to consider this as legitimate childcare or discipline," and judged it as child abuse against B.

However, Judge Kim sentenced A to a fine rather than a custodial sentence such as imprisonment. The decisive factor was B’s statement during the police investigation. While being questioned at the police station with his mother, B said, "My father hit me because I kept lying and behaving wrongly, and I (still) love my father. I do not want him to be punished."

Judge Kim stated, "The victim child’s testimony is very detailed and vivid," and added, "The victim child and his biological mother do not want punishment, and the relationship between the defendant and the victim child appears to be good." Based on this judgment, Judge Kim also exempted A from the employment restriction order. Article 29-3 of the Child Welfare Act stipulates that "a person who has been sentenced or committed to treatment for a child abuse-related crime cannot operate or be employed at a child-related institution for 10 years after the completion or cancellation of the sentence." Although A, who received a fine for child abuse, should originally have been subject to the employment restriction order, Judge Kim ruled, "There are special circumstances that should not impose employment restrictions, so the employment restriction order will not be imposed."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.