Suspicion of Murder for Insurance Money... Why the 'Geumodo Incident' Ended in Acquittal

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] On December 31, 2018, around 10 p.m., Mr. B (47 years old at the time of death) fell into the sea and died along with his Genesis passenger car at a pier on Geumo-do Island, Yeosu City, Jeollanam-do. The prime suspect was his husband, Mr. A. While reversing at the pier, he hit the crash-prevention railing and got out of the driver's seat, leaving his wife B inside the car to check the vehicle's condition. However, he exited the vehicle with the gearshift in neutral (N), and the car, parked on a slope with his wife inside, rolled into the sea.

Although it appeared to be an accident, suspicious details about the circumstances emerged. Mr. A, who had over 20 years of driving experience, did not engage the parking brake or put the gear in park when exiting. Additionally, only the passenger-side window was lowered about 7 cm, allowing water to quickly fill the car.

Another issue was that Mr. A, who was an insurance planner at the time, had changed all of Mrs. B’s insurance beneficiaries to himself before the accident. The insurance payout Mr. A could receive due to Mrs. B’s death was up to approximately 1.25 billion KRW. Ultimately, the prosecution charged Mr. A with murder, believing he approached Mrs. B with the intent to claim insurance money and staged the accident to kill her.

What was the court’s judgment? The first trial ruled that it was indeed a murder motivated by insurance money and sentenced the husband to life imprisonment. Considering the husband’s financial situation, the relationship with Mrs. B, and the accident circumstances, the court found sufficient grounds to deem it a premeditated murder. The first trial court criticized, “He used a precious life as a tool to fraudulently obtain insurance money and caused the victim to drown in the cold sea on a winter night while trapped in the car, which is an extremely heinous crime.” The court further noted, “Mr. A claims he felt something catch and thought the gear was in park (P) when he got out, but given his driving experience since 1998, it is unlikely he confused park (P) with neutral (N).”

However, the situation reversed from the second trial onward. The court explained, “When an experimental vehicle was parked 1.5 meters away from the railing in neutral (N), it rolled down the slope as soon as the driver released the pedal. At distances of 1 to 1.2 meters, the vehicle rolled down the slope when a person in the passenger seat lifted their upper body once.”

The court added, “If Mr. A had planned to kill, he should have considered whether escape was possible when the car fell into the sea and whether the water was deep enough. There is no evidence that Mr. A prepared or reviewed the crime in advance.” The court recognized only the charge of vehicle abandonment and sentenced him to three years in prison.

The Supreme Court also ruled that there was no direct evidence to conclude intentional murder. The court believed Mr. A did not know the exact position where the vehicle would not roll down on its own, i.e., 0.5 meters away from the railing, and thus did not park there.

The court also mentioned that the gear operation method of the accident vehicle differed from what Mr. A was accustomed to. To shift the gear from drive (D) to park (P) in that vehicle, the lever must be lifted one step to neutral (N), pushed to the right, and then lifted again. The court believed Mr. A, unfamiliar with the gear operation, was startled by the sudden collision with the railing.

There was also mention of circumstances suggesting that Mrs. B did not take out insurance under Mr. A’s coercion. Mrs. B had two insurance contracts that maximized the death benefit, and the court explained that the additional premiums for increasing the death coverage were minimal. The fact that Mr. A had already taken out insurance with the maximum death benefit before meeting Mrs. B also supported the court’s judgment.

However, Mr. A’s acquittal in the criminal murder trial does not automatically grant him the right to receive the insurance payout. The civil court handling the insurance claim dispute will review the contract background and case developments to determine whether it constitutes fraudulent insurance subscription aimed at claiming the payout and will reach a conclusion accordingly. It is known that Mrs. B’s insurance company is thoroughly reviewing the court rulings and plans to respond based on Mr. A’s future actions.

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