Brain Hemorrhage from a Single Punch... 2nd Trial Also Rules "Injury Leading to Death Established"

Seoul Central District Court / Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A man in his 20s who was charged with causing the death of an intoxicated coworker by punching him once was found guilty again in the second trial.

According to the legal community on the 12th, the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 2 (Presiding Judge Sanghoon Ham) sentenced A (27), who was charged with injury resulting in death, to five years in prison, the same as the original trial. The court stated, "Considering that physical force was used by punching the face of an intoxicated person, there is no error in the original judgment that established the charge of injury resulting in death."

A was charged with punching the face of his intoxicated coworker B once in an alley in front of a restaurant in Bucheon, Gyeonggi Province, around 11:30 p.m. on June 20 last year, causing B's death. B, who was assaulted, immediately fell and hit his head on the asphalt ground in the alley, receiving hospital treatment for acute cerebral hemorrhage before dying four days later. Investigations revealed that A threw the punch out of anger because B had made lewd remarks about A's girlfriend during a company dinner just before the incident. However, during the trial, A completely denied the charge of injury resulting in death, stating, "Considering the number and degree of assaults and the situation at the time, I could not have foreseen that the victim would die."

According to Supreme Court precedents, for the crime of injury resulting in death, which is a result-enhanced offense, there must be a causal relationship between the basic crime of injury and the death, and the death must have been foreseeable. The foreseeability of death should be determined by examining the degree of assault and the victim's state of response.

The first trial court found A guilty based on this legal principle. The first trial court also stated, "Considering that A struck the face, where the brain critical to human life is located, and that the victim was intoxicated and had reduced self-defense ability, it was foreseeable that death could occur."

The second trial court made the same judgment as the first trial. The court said, "A took a boxing stance and charged at the victim, striking the left side of the face," and added, "Generally, when charging at someone and putting body weight into the strike, a much greater impact can be inflicted, so it was sufficiently foreseeable that the victim could die."

The second trial court also rejected A's claim that the sentence was too harsh. The court stated, "Favorable circumstances for sentencing, such as the defendant's direct report to 119, were already sufficiently considered in the original sentencing," and added, "The original sentence does not appear to be excessively heavy beyond the reasonable range of discretion." According to the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines, the recommended sentence range for 'cases where death results from general injury' is three to five years in prison.

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