Supreme Court: "Government Responsible for 'Junggok-dong Housewife Murder Case'"

1st and 2nd Trials "Cannot Hold Police and Probation Office Responsible" Family's Compensation Lawsuit Dismissed
Supreme Court "Failure to Confirm Seo Jin-hwan's Location and Conduct Regular Supervision... Significant Fault, Violation of Law"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] In a case where the bereaved family of the victim in the ‘Junggok-dong Housewife Murder Case’ filed a claim for damages against the state, the Supreme Court ruled that the police and probation authorities bear partial responsibility.

The Supreme Court’s First Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) on the 14th overturned the lower court’s ruling, which had dismissed the claim, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court with a ruling in favor of partial victory for A and others, who filed the lawsuit against the government.

A and others are the bereaved family of victim B (then 37 years old) in the ‘Junggok-dong Housewife Murder Case.’ B was murdered by Seo Jin-hwan at her home in Junggok-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul on August 20, 2012. Seo Jin-hwan was tried for this case and received a life sentence in 2013.

The bereaved family claimed that Seo Jin-hwan had already been sentenced to seven years in prison for a sexual assault committed in 2004 using a weapon, and after his release in August 2011, he was wearing an electronic monitoring device (electronic anklet) when he murdered B. They argued that this occurred due to illegal performance of duties by officials from investigative and probation agencies, and thus filed a state compensation claim against the government.

The trial focused on whether the police officers and probation officers responsible for arresting, detaining, or preventing recidivism by Seo Jin-hwan had performed their duties unlawfully due to a lack of objective justification.

The first trial court judged that there was insufficient causal relationship between the police’s fault and the murder of B. Although the police did not use location information from the electronic anklet in the investigation, they conducted other basic investigations diligently through CCTV, and thus dismissed the bereaved family’s claim.

The appellate court acknowledged faults by the police and the probation office but ruled that there was no violation of laws. Investigations are conducted at the discretion of the police based on professional judgment, and there was no guideline requiring the use of location information from electronic anklets. Furthermore, considering that regular meetings with Seo Jin-hwan had been held before the incident, the court ruled that the police and probation office could not be held responsible.

However, the Supreme Court stated, “The police’s insufficient measures to confirm Seo Jin-hwan’s location near the initial crime scene and the probation officer’s failure to conduct periodic supervision constitute significant faults and violations of the law,” and ordered a retrial by the appellate court.

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