'Financial Hardship and Medical Expense Burden'... Husband Who Removed Wife's Ventilator Sentenced to 5 Years in Appeal Trial

File photo [Asia Economy DB]

[Asia Economy Reporter Ra Young-cheol] The defendant, who was charged with causing the death of his wife by removing her ventilator due to the burden of medical expenses and was sentenced to imprisonment in the first trial, had his appeal dismissed.

The Seoul High Court (Chuncheon District Court 1st Criminal Division) announced on the 11th that it dismissed the appeal of Mr. A (60), who was sentenced to five years in prison in the first trial for killing his wife by removing the ventilator she depended on in the intensive care unit after losing consciousness, due to the increased burden of medical expenses.

The appellate court stated in its judgment, "The first trial proceeded with this case as a citizen participation trial at the defendant's request, and the sentence was determined by respecting the majority sentencing opinions of the jurors," adding, "The majority of the jurors' sentencing opinions stem from the common sense and experience of ordinary citizens, and their validity can be accepted."

It continued, "Considering the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the defendant, and that the sentence imposed by the first trial falls within the recommended sentencing range according to sentencing guidelines with no changes in circumstances warranting a different sentence, as well as comprehensively considering various sentencing factors such as the defendant's age, character, environment, family relationships, motive, means and results of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the first trial is not deemed excessively harsh or lenient to be unjust," explaining the reasons for sentencing.

The court further noted, "However, the defendant admitted to the crime and has no prior criminal record, and the victim was in a coma, unconscious, unable to breathe spontaneously, and dependent on life-sustaining treatment via a ventilator," adding, "Considering that approximately 2.5 million won in medical expenses had been incurred until the crime was committed, there are somewhat mitigating circumstances regarding the defendant's motive, and the victim's children and bereaved family do not wish for the defendant's punishment."

Nevertheless, the court pointed out, "On the other hand, human life is the highest legal interest protected by law and the most dignified value, and any act infringing upon it is unacceptable regardless of the reason."

Mr. A, who worked as a caregiver along with his wife B (56) at a nursing hospital in Gimcheon, Gyeongbuk, discovered in May 2019 that B had lost consciousness for unknown reasons and collapsed, and transferred her to a nearby hospital for treatment.

However, as B's diagnosis and cause were not identified and she became unable to breathe on her own, she was transferred consecutively to a university hospital in Daegu and a hospital in Cheonan for treatment, but B did not improve and remained dependent on a ventilator for life support.

Mr. A, who had no significant assets and maintained their livelihood by working as caregivers for the elderly and critically ill patients with B, anticipated that if B continued receiving life-sustaining treatment, medical expenses of 200,000 to 300,000 won per day would arise, leading to financial difficulties.

Before the crime, Mr. A requested medical staff to remove the ventilator intubation from B's airway, but the hospital refused, explaining B's condition and stating that procedures must be followed according to the Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment.

Ultimately, believing that B, who depended solely on the ventilator in the intensive care unit, had little chance of recovery and that the medical expense burden was increasing, Mr. A removed the ventilator intubation inserted in B's airway, causing B's death in June of the same year, and was charged accordingly.

In the first trial, a citizen participation trial was held as Mr. A wished, and respecting the majority sentencing opinions of the jurors (five jurors for five years imprisonment, three for four years imprisonment, and one for three years imprisonment with five years probation), Mr. A was sentenced to five years in prison.

Mr. A appealed, claiming "the sentence of the first trial is excessively harsh and unjust," while the prosecution also appealed, arguing "the sentence is too lenient and unjust."

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