Supreme Court Sentences Mother to 7 Years for Beating 30s Son to Death with Bamboo 2000 Times as Discipline

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A woman in her 60s who killed her biological son by beating him more than 2,000 times with a bamboo stick and other means under the pretext of discipline has been sentenced to a heavy prison term.

The Supreme Court's 1st Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) announced on the 16th that it upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing A (64), who was indicted on charges of murder, to 7 years in prison after recognizing guilt for injury resulting in death in the final appeal.

The court stated, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment as claimed in the grounds for appeal, such as violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the implied intent of murder."

A was charged with killing his son B (then 35), who was preparing for a civil service exam, on August 28, 2020, by repeatedly hitting him with a bamboo stick approximately 1 meter long and 2.4 cm in diameter, as well as with hands and feet, on his head and upper body while B was kneeling at a temple in Cheongdo-gun, Gyeongsangbuk-do, where A resided. The reason was that B caused various disturbances and showed disrespectful behavior toward A, who was disciplining him.

The assault, which began around 4:30 p.m., lasted about 2 hours and 30 minutes until 7:04 p.m., during which B was struck 2,167 times.

At around 7:11 p.m., B lost consciousness and collapsed. A and others attempted emergency measures such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but B did not regain consciousness. He was transported to the hospital by the 119 emergency team but ultimately died at 10:04 p.m. the same day.

The prosecution charged A with murder, believing there was implied intent to kill.

During the investigation, it was revealed that the temple chief had pressured B to confess to false misconduct to prevent him from exposing internal violence and erratic behavior at the temple to outsiders.

However, the first and second trial courts found it difficult to recognize A's intent to murder.

This was based on testimony from B's older brother C, stating that "While B's father would scold him when he caused trouble, their mother (A) always considered B a sensitive point and consistently protected and embraced him, maintaining a very good relationship between mother and siblings," as well as CCTV footage recorded during the incident.

In particular, A mainly struck B's arms, back, thighs, and buttocks, and although there were some instances of hitting B's head with the stick or kicking his head, these were done with less force compared to other parts, which was also taken into consideration.

Ultimately, the court ruled that there was no proof of the crime of murder and acquitted A of that charge.

Although A was indicted for murder, the indictment included injury resulting in death. Considering A's claims and the course of the trial, the court judged that recognizing the crime of injury resulting in death would not cause substantial disadvantage to the defendant's right to defense, and thus acknowledged the crime of injury resulting in death ex officio without amending the indictment. However, the probation order requested by the prosecution on the premise that A committed murder was dismissed.

The Supreme Court also found no problem with this judgment.

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