Man in 50s Stabbed Victim Dozens of Times Over 'Geumjeonmunje', Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison... Inside the People's Jury Trial

Key Issue of Planned Crime
Prosecution Presents Closed-Circuit (CC) TV Video Evidence
Jury and Court: "No Serious Attitude of Remorse Shown"

On February 24th at around 10:15 AM, Mr. A, a man in his 50s accused of killing a man in his 40s in Sangam-dong, Mapo-gu, is appearing in court for suspect interrogation.
Photo by Oh Gyumin

[Asia Economy Reporter Oh Gyumin] “I will ask just one question. Please answer well. Do you have anything to say to the victim or the victim’s family?”

On the afternoon of the 25th, around 6 p.m., at the Seoul Western District Court, Chief Judge Andongbeom asked defendant Jang (55) this question near the end of his examination during a citizen trial that lasted over three and a half hours. Jang said, “I truly feel sorry to the victim’s family,” but also added, “The victim appeared in my dream a few days ago, and we joked and laughed together, which somewhat eased my mind.”

The citizen trial of Jang, who stabbed and killed a construction company executive with a knife over a debt dispute in Sangam-dong, Mapo-gu, was held on the 25th. This citizen trial was held not to determine guilt or innocence but to decide sentencing, with the key issue being whether the crime was premeditated.

The reason it was held as a citizen trial rather than a regular trial was because Jang claimed that although he committed murder, he had a motive leading to it. At the preparatory hearing held in May, Jang expressed his grievance, saying, “I was mocked, deceived, and provoked by the victim.” He seemed to want to explain these reasons through the citizen trial to receive leniency in sentencing.

Jang, along with his lawyers, argued that the crime was impulsive. Specifically, he claimed: ▲ there was a legal dispute over a lien with the victim and he was owed money ▲ he visited the victim several times to collect the money ▲ he was undergoing a divorce lawsuit with his wife due to financial difficulties on the day of the incident ▲ at the time of the crime, after showing the weapon, the victim first struck him or choked him, so there was no intent to kill.

On the other hand, the prosecution presented CCTV footage from outside the building where the murder took place as decisive evidence. Jang explained the one minute before he stabbed the victim, claiming he had an argument with the victim and was hit first. However, the footage showed Jang committing the crime for 50 seconds immediately after the hallway sensor light turned on, then leaving the scene. This evidence contradicted Jang’s statement. The prosecution further argued that Jang’s actions of finding the victim’s office and following his movements for two days before the incident indicated a planned crime, and requested a life sentence.

The jury and the court sided with the prosecution. Chief Judge Ahn said, “Even if we consider Jang’s claims that he went to see the victim because he couldn’t get his money back or that the victim choked him after seeing the weapon, it is difficult to accept these as favorable circumstances,” adding, “He is judged not to show a sincere attitude of remorse.” The court sentenced him to 30 years in prison, ordered him to wear an electronic monitoring device (electronic anklet) for 10 years, and to complete 120 hours of a specific crime treatment program.

Meanwhile, Jang filed an appeal one day after the sentencing, and it is known that the prosecution also appealed on the 28th.

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