50s Man Who Killed Elderly Over 'Real Estate Conflict' Sentenced to 18 Years in Prison on Appeal

Defendant "In a State of Diminished Capacity" and Prosecution "Sentence Too Light" Appeals Both Dismissed

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters, Reporter Park Jin-hyung] A man in his 50s who killed an elderly man over a real estate dispute was sentenced to a heavy punishment again in the appellate court.

The 1st Criminal Division of the Gwangju High Court (Presiding Judge Lee Seung-chul) on the 15th dismissed both the defendant A (56) and the prosecution's appeals in the appeal trial on charges of murder and concealment of a corpse.

The first trial sentenced him to 18 years in prison and ordered 3 years of probation.

After the first trial verdict, the defendant claimed he was heavily intoxicated and mentally impaired, and that the original sentence was too harsh. The prosecution appealed, arguing that the electronic monitoring order was dismissed and the sentence was too light.

A was tried on charges of killing an elderly man in his 80s who came to his home in Naju, Jeollanam-do on March 12 last year demanding the return of land, and abandoning the body.

He repeatedly struck the victim with his fists, glass bottles, and home appliances, then strangled him to death.

He moved the victim’s body by cargo truck to a warehouse to conceal it, wiped bloodstains with water, and burned weapons and other evidence to destroy proof.

A had received part of the land in exchange for building a compost warehouse for the elderly man, but later became dissatisfied as the elderly man continuously demanded the return of the land, which led to the crime.

The court said, "(The victim) assaulted the defendant who has a physical disability, leading to a physical struggle, and it appears the crime was committed impulsively," and "The defendant admitted some of the crimes he denied in the original trial and is reflecting on his actions."

However, the court stated the sentencing reason, "The victim lost an irreplaceable and precious life due to the murder, and the defendant has neither received forgiveness from the bereaved family nor reached a settlement."

Regarding the prosecution’s request for an electronic monitoring order, the court said, "It is considered that the requirements were not met."

The first trial court also judged, "There is insufficient reason to believe there is a significant likelihood that the defendant will commit murder again in the future to the extent that electronic monitoring is necessary to maintain legal peace."

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