Supreme Court Confirms 14-Year Sentence for 50s Son Who Killed 90s Mother Trying to Stop Excessive Drinking

"No Intent to Murder and Claims of Diminished Responsibility" Rejected
Court States "Fulfilled Parental Duties"… Recognizes Accidental Killing

Supreme Court Grand Bench.
Photo by Supreme Court

[Asia Economy Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A man in his 50s who brutally beat his mother in her 90s to death for scolding him to drink moderately has been sentenced to a heavy prison term.

The son claimed in court that he lost his temper momentarily and did not intend to kill his mother, and that he was intoxicated and mentally impaired, but these claims were not accepted. However, the court considered that the son had generally fulfilled his duties as a child and that the murder was committed impulsively when determining the sentence.

The Supreme Court’s 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dong-won) announced on the 11th that it upheld the 14-year prison sentence handed down by the lower court in the appeal trial of A (56), who was charged with killing a family member.

The court stated, "There is no error in the lower court’s judgment regarding the intent of killing a family member or the law concerning mental impairment, and even considering the circumstances argued in the appeal, it cannot be said that the lower court’s decision to maintain the 14-year sentence from the first trial is seriously unjust," dismissing the appeals from both A and the prosecution.

According to the court, A suffered significant property damage due to flooding in August 2020, and in December of the same year, his wife sustained a work-related injury resulting in the amputation of three fingers on her right hand but did not receive proper compensation, causing ongoing stress and dissatisfaction.

On December 31, 2020, A drank alcohol at his mother B’s (then 91 years old) house in a location in Chungju. Starting to drink at 4:16 p.m., A continued drinking until nearly 9 p.m., when B scolded him, saying, "I told you to drink just a little, but you keep drinking."

In a moment of anger, A rushed at his mother sitting on the living room sofa and struck her face and other areas dozens of times with both fists, causing her death.

The first trial court found A guilty of killing a family member and sentenced him to 14 years in prison. The sentence was determined by considering his unlicensed driving to his mother’s house on the day of the incident (violation of the Road Traffic Act) and the aggravation of concurrent offenses.

During the trial, A argued that he only assaulted his mother out of momentary anger and had no intention to kill her.

However, the court judged that although A did not plan to kill his mother from the beginning, at least a form of indirect intent to kill was recognized, given that he repeatedly and intensively assaulted the face and head of his 91-year-old mother, who was only 145 cm tall.

The court stated, "Even though it is commonly known that delivering strong blows to the face and head of a person over 90 years old can lead to death, the defendant indiscriminately and repeatedly applied strong physical force to the face and head of the 91-year-old victim. It is reasonable to conclude that the defendant recognized or foresaw the possibility that his actions could cause the victim’s death and proceeded with the crime while tolerating this outcome, thus the defendant’s intent regarding the crime can be sufficiently inferred, even if indirectly."

A also claimed that he was intoxicated and mentally impaired at the time of the incident.

However, the court acknowledged that "the defendant was indeed quite intoxicated, having consumed a distilled liquor with an ethyl alcohol content of 19.5%," but rejected the claim, noting that "the defendant roughly remembered the reasons and circumstances leading to the assault during his statements to investigators and even gave false statements during the initial investigation."

Nevertheless, the court considered that "the defendant had fulfilled his duties as a son by visiting the victim daily until the day of the crime, tending to her by lighting the boiler, and caring for her in his own way; the crime appears to have been committed impulsively; the guilt of having caused his mother’s death will likely remain a mental burden for the defendant for life; and the defendant has generally acknowledged his wrongdoing and shown remorse," when determining the sentence.

A appealed the first trial on grounds of "factual error and legal misinterpretation" and "excessive sentencing," while the prosecution appealed on grounds of "excessive sentencing," but the appellate court dismissed both appeals.

The appellate court rejected A’s claim of mental impairment, citing reasons such as "the defendant initially gave false testimony to investigators as a witness, stating that the victim was already deceased when discovered."

Additionally, the court noted that since the Criminal Act was amended in December 2018, mental impairment became a discretionary mitigating factor, so even if A committed the crime while mentally impaired as he claimed, the lower court’s decision not to apply legal mitigation was not illegal.

The Supreme Court also found no issues with the appellate court’s ruling.

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