Supreme Court Confirms 35-Year Sentence for Stepmother in 'Jeong-in's Death' Case... Prosecution's Appeal on Sentencing Rejected

Citizens hold placards in front of the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on November 5 last year, the day of the appellate trial verdict for the adoptive parents accused of causing the death of 16-month-old girl Jeong-in after abuse. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Jang Mo, the adoptive mother accused of abusing and causing the death of 16-month-old adopted daughter Jeong In-yang, has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The prosecution argued that the 35-year sentence handed down in the second trial was too lenient and claimed sentencing was unfair, but the Supreme Court rejected this, stating it did not meet the grounds for appeal as defined by the Criminal Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-hyung) on the 28th upheld the lower court's ruling, recognizing Jang's guilt on charges of murder and violations of the Child Welfare Act (habitual child abuse, habitual child abandonment, and neglect), and confirmed the 35-year prison sentence.

The court also upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing the adoptive father, Ahn Mo, to five years in prison for charges including neglecting Jang's abusive behavior.

Regarding Jang, the court stated, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment finding the defendant guilty beyond the limits of free evaluation of evidence contrary to the rules of logic and experience, nor any misinterpretation of the intent for murder or the legal principles concerning 'emotional abuse' and 'abandonment and neglect' as defined in Article 17 of the Child Welfare Act."

Regarding Ahn, the court explained, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment finding the defendant guilty beyond the limits of free evaluation of evidence contrary to the rules of logic and experience, nor any misinterpretation of the legal principles concerning intent for abandonment and neglect under the Child Welfare Act," thus dismissing the appeal.

Adoptive mother Jang was arrested and indicted on charges of repeatedly assaulting and abusing her adopted daughter Jeong In-yang, whom she adopted between June and October 2020, and delivering a strong blow to the abdomen on October 13, causing the child's death.

Jang and Ahn met while attending the same university and, after dating for six years, married in May 2013. However, Jang did not particularly like children and did not wish to give birth, so they lived without children for about four years before having their first daughter in April 2017.

After childbirth, Jang suffered severe postpartum pain and did not want to have a second child to avoid damaging her figure. However, she and her husband shared the belief that they should have two children, and their first daughter wished for a younger sister, so they decided to adopt a girl.

In mid-June 2018, the couple visited an adoption agency for consultation, submitted an adoption application on July 13 of the same year, and completed prospective adoptive parent education in June the following year.

In August 2019, they applied for adoption approval under the Special Adoption Act at the Seoul Family Court and received approval on January 10, 2020. They began living with Jeong In-yang around January 17, 2020, and became her legal parents following the court's final adoption approval on February 3, 2020.

The couple adopted Jeong In-yang to foster an emotional bond with their biological daughter (then 3 years old) by having children close in age. However, raising two young daughters caused Jang stress due to Jeong In-yang crying, fussing, or not eating well, which led to abusive behavior.

From late March 2020, frequent bruises and injuries were found on Jeong In-yang's forehead, cheeks, neck, thighs, and abdomen. The daycare center director, suspicious of abuse, reported it in May 2020. In July and September of the same year, others also reported suspected abuse, prompting a police investigation. In response, Jang stopped sending Jeong In-yang to daycare and cared for her at home, where her irritation and anger escalated, worsening the abuse.

According to the prosecution's charges, on the morning of October 13, 2020, between 9:00 and 10:15 a.m., Jang repeatedly abused 16-month-old Jeong In-yang (height 79 cm, weight 9.5 kg) at home. Enraged because Jeong In-yang was not eating, she violently shook the child's arms, dislocating the left elbow, struck the abdomen multiple times with her hands, causing the child to fall to the floor, and then repeatedly stomped on the abdomen with strong blunt force, resulting in the pancreas being severed and the mesentery ruptured.

That afternoon, realizing Jeong In-yang's critical condition, Jang took her by taxi to the hospital. Despite several episodes of respiratory arrest and fluctuating between life and death, Jeong In-yang died around 6:40 p.m. from extensive abdominal injuries, including approximately 600 ml of intra-abdominal bleeding caused by pancreatic severance and mesenteric rupture, as well as widespread retroperitoneal hemorrhage.

In the first trial, Jang was found guilty of murder and child abuse and sentenced to life imprisonment. Ahn was sentenced to five years in prison.

During the first trial, Jang denied intent to kill, but the prosecution argued that implied intent for murder was present. The court ruled that "it was sufficiently foreseeable that fatal injuries could occur leading to death," thus establishing the murder charge.

During the appeal, the prosecution requested to amend the indictment to add that Jang "struck Jeong In-yang's abdomen strongly with fists or hands" in addition to "stomping strongly with feet." The court approved this amendment.

The second trial court cited a Supreme Court precedent stating, "In murder cases, if the exact method of the crime cannot be specifically determined, it is permissible to describe it generally." The court concluded that Jang's actions involved either "strong blunt force using hands or fists" or "strong stomping with feet," and recognized the murder act.

However, the second trial court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 35 years, reasoning that while the crime was not accidental, it was difficult to conclude that Jang committed premeditated murder, and that she performed CPR on Jeong In-yang in the taxi en route to the hospital, indicating she did not actively desire or hope for the child's death.

The court stated, "Considering the gravity and cruelty of the crime, the defendant's culpability is very serious. Furthermore, strict punishment is necessary to prevent similar crimes and protect potential victims, so the defendant must be severely punished."

However, the court also noted, "Life imprisonment permanently deprives the defendant of freedom, second only to the death penalty in severity. Therefore, to impose life imprisonment, all sentencing factors under Article 51 of the Criminal Act must be thoroughly examined, including the defendant's age, occupation, behavior, intelligence, education, upbringing, family relations, criminal history, relationship with the victim, motive, premeditation, means and methods, cruelty, severity of consequences, defendant's attitude after the crime, remorse, victim restitution, and risk of recidivism. It must be objectively justified to permanently isolate the defendant from society, and this must be carefully judged considering principles of proportionality and responsibility in criminal justice."

Ahn, charged with neglecting Jeong In-yang and condoning Jang's abuse, was sentenced to five years in prison in the first trial.

The second trial court acquitted Ahn of abuse charges related to forcibly making Jeong In-yang clap her hands by tightly holding her arms despite the child's crying, accepting Ahn's appeal. The court found that the evidence submitted by the prosecution was insufficient to prove Ahn's intent for emotional abuse beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the second trial upheld Ahn's conviction for neglect under the Child Welfare Act and sentenced him to five years, the same as the first trial.

The Supreme Court found no issues with these rulings from the second trial.

Meanwhile, a key issue in this Supreme Court case, where a 35-year sentence was imposed in the second trial, was whether the prosecution could appeal on the grounds of 'unfair sentencing.' Previously, the prosecution had sought the death penalty for Jang in both the first and second trial closing arguments.

The court stated, "According to Article 383, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the grounds for appeal regarding unfair sentencing are interpreted as benefiting the defendant who received a sentence of 10 years or more imprisonment. Therefore, the prosecution cannot file an appeal on the grounds that the sentence is too lenient or otherwise unfavorable to the defendant." This maintains the Supreme Court's existing stance.

Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act (grounds for appeal) lists four cases where an appeal against a lower court's ruling is permitted: ▲violation of the Constitution, laws, orders, or regulations affecting the judgment (No. 1), ▲abolition, change, or pardon of the sentence after judgment (No. 2), ▲grounds for retrial (No. 3), and ▲in cases where the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of 10 years or more is imposed, if there is a significant factual error affecting the judgment or a clear reason to consider the sentence excessively unfair (No. 4).

The Supreme Court has traditionally interpreted the latter part of No. 4 (excessively unfair sentencing) as a ground that can only be claimed for the benefit of the defendant.

Following the 'Jeong In case,' the National Assembly amended the Child Abuse Punishment Act early last year.

The revised law did not increase statutory penalties for child abuse crimes but added provisions requiring local governments or investigative agencies to immediately begin investigations or inquiries upon receiving reports of child abuse crimes.

It also introduced provisions allowing police or officials dispatched to the scene to enter locations other than the reported site and to separate the reporter, witnesses, victim children, and perpetrators during investigations of child abuse cases.

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