Supreme Court Sentencing Commission Significantly Raises Sentencing Guidelines for Child Abuse Crimes... Maximum Imprisonment of 22 Years and 6 Months

Life Imprisonment for Child Abuse Homicide
Final Decision Scheduled for March Next Year

On the afternoon of the 6th, the 113th plenary meeting of the Sentencing Commission was held at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, with Chairman Kim Young-ran and new members in attendance.
[Photo by Joint Press Corps]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The sentencing guidelines upper limit for child abuse resulting in death crimes will be raised to a maximum of 22 years and 6 months in prison, significantly strengthening the sentencing standards for child abuse crimes.

If a victim suffers secondary harm due to an excessive attempt at settlement, it will be classified as 'harm caused during settlement attempt,' which will act as a general aggravating factor and a general disqualification reason for probation in most crimes involving victims.

According to the legal community on the 7th, the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission (Chair Kim Young-ran) deliberated and resolved these matters at its 113th meeting held yesterday afternoon in the Supreme Court conference room.

At the meeting, the commission reviewed ▲ the revised sentencing guidelines for child abuse crimes and ▲ the principles for establishing sentencing guidelines for fines. Additionally, revised sentencing guidelines related to settlement factors were approved.

First, through deliberation on the 'Revised Sentencing Guidelines for Child Abuse Crimes,' the commission significantly raised the recommended sentencing range for child abuse crimes. This measure is interpreted as reflecting the national consensus demanding strict punishment for child abuse crimes, influenced by cases such as the 'Jeong-in case.'

The commission raised both the upper and lower limits of the aggravated sentencing range for physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and abandonment of children under the Child Welfare Act, increasing the recommended sentencing range from 1 to 2 years imprisonment to 1 year and 2 months to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. In cases where the number of special aggravating factors exceeds special mitigating factors by two or more, indicating particularly severe offenses, the recommended sentencing range will be up to the statutory maximum of 5 years imprisonment, the commission explained.

However, considering the diverse types of conduct by suspects of physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and abandonment and the varied growth environments of the victimized children, the commission decided to maintain the current standards for the basic sentencing range (6 months to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment) and the mitigation range (2 months to 1 year imprisonment).

For sexual abuse and child trafficking under the Child Welfare Act, which were not previously included in the sentencing guidelines, the commission established recommended imprisonment ranges. For sexual abuse, the recommended range upon aggravation is 2 to 5 years imprisonment, and for child trafficking, 2 years and 6 months to 6 years imprisonment.

Additionally, the commission decided to significantly raise the recommended sentencing range for child abuse resulting in death under the Child Abuse Punishment Act.

The current basic sentencing range of 4 to 7 years imprisonment will have its upper limit extended by one year to 8 years, while the aggravated range will be raised from 6 to 10 years to 7 to 15 years imprisonment, increasing both the upper and lower limits.

The commission explained the background, stating, "When a child is abused resulting in death, it is difficult to prove intent to kill, so the case may not be prosecuted as murder. However, the responsibility for such a severe outcome is heavier than for other aggravated result crimes."

With the significant increase in the upper limit of the aggravated range, if the number of special aggravating factors exceeds special mitigating factors by two or more, the recommended sentencing range upper limit can be raised to 22 years and 6 months imprisonment through special adjustment, the commission stated.

The commission also newly established sentencing guidelines for child abuse homicide under the Child Abuse Punishment Act, which has newly introduced punishment provisions.

The recommended sentencing range for child abuse homicide is set as follows: basic range of 17 to 22 years imprisonment, mitigation range of 12 to 18 years imprisonment, and aggravated range of 20 years imprisonment or life imprisonment or more.

The commission plans to finalize and disclose the revised guidelines deliberated this time next month, then conduct a public opinion survey among related organizations such as government agencies, civic groups, and others, followed by administrative notice and collection of opinions through the Sentencing Commission website.

Afterward, a public hearing will be held, and the sentencing guidelines will be finally approved at the full meeting of the Sentencing Commission in March next year.

Furthermore, the commission reviewed the basic principles for establishing sentencing guidelines for fines.

First, considering criticisms that setting uniform standards for all crimes is inappropriate, the commission decided to establish sentencing guidelines by crime groups.

Regarding the choice of sentence types such as imprisonment or fines, instead of providing uniform criteria, the commission will set criteria for sentence type selection individually for each crime group, considering the characteristics of the crime, statutory penalties, and sentencing practices.

For the recommended sentencing range for fines, the commission will set ranges by category based on statistical analysis of previous sentencing practices, while applying appropriate normative adjustments for crimes where there is a national consensus demanding stricter sentencing or where statutory penalties have been raised.

The commission will carefully observe the accumulation, content, and frequency of sentencing practices regarding probation for fines and will review whether to establish such standards in the future.

Unlike probation for imprisonment, which considers the risk of recidivism, probation for fines to prevent detention in labor camps due to inability to pay fines is rarely used, accounting for only about 1% of all fines, which influenced this decision.

At yesterday's meeting, the commission also approved the establishment of provisions defining factors that reduce punishment levels, such as 'withdrawal of complaint' or 'substantial victim recovery.' The revised sentencing guidelines approved this time will apply to crimes prosecuted after March 1 of next year.

The commission also revised sentencing guidelines to uniformly impose aggravated punishment and prohibit probation when secondary harm is caused to victims due to excessive settlement attempts.

The commission unified the terminology of such factors, currently included only in some crimes as general aggravating factors or general disqualification reasons for probation, under the term 'harm caused during settlement attempt,' defining it as "cases where the victim is continuously harassed during the settlement attempt process or subjected to undue pressure such as implying tangible or intangible disadvantages for refusing settlement or causing harm by equivalent methods." However, if a separate coercion crime is established, this aggravating factor does not apply.

The next Sentencing Commission meeting is scheduled for the 24th of next month. At the next meeting, the commission plans to review and finalize the revised sentencing guidelines for child abuse crimes and the principles for sentencing guidelines for fines.

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