Shot Dead but Sentenced to 1 Year 8 Months... Reason for the Verdict

Photographer Mistakes Person for Wild Boar... Victim Dies
Bereaved Family "Illegal Act, But Sentence Too Light"
Court "Significant Breach of Duty of Care"
However, Not Deemed a 'Severe Case'
General Punishment Given Instead of Aggravated Sentence

On the 19th, the defendant in the case of a taxi driver who was mistaken for a wild boar and shot to death was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months in prison. The bereaved family argued that the defendant, a hunter, committed an "illegal act" and called for a harsher punishment.
Photo by Seoul Eunpyeong Fire Station

[Asia Economy Reporter Oh Gyumin] The defendant involved in the case where a taxi driver was mistaken for a wild boar and shot to death was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months in prison. The bereaved family argued that the hunter defendant committed an ‘illegal act’ and called for a harsher punishment.

On the 19th, Judge Jeong Geumyoung of the Criminal Division 4 at the Seoul Western District Court sentenced A (73), who was detained and indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in death, to 1 year and 8 months in prison. A prison sentence involves confinement in a correctional facility but does not include forced labor.

A is accused of shooting one shotgun round at taxi driver B, who had stopped his car near the entrance of Bukhansan Urban Nature Park close to Gugi Tunnel in Eunpyeong-gu on April 29 at 8:24 p.m. B sustained penetrating wounds to his abdomen and arm and was transported to Seoul National University Hospital while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but he died at 12:52 a.m., about five hours later.

After the verdict on the 19th, the bereaved family stated that the sentence was too light. They said, “The defendant, as a hunter, did not fulfill any of the obligations he was supposed to uphold and committed the crime after receiving the firearm,” and insisted, “At the very least, the prosecution’s demand (4 years in prison) should have been met.”

Bereaved Family: "A Lacked Law-Abiding Spirit"… Settlement Was 'Half-Hearted'?

According to them, hunter A did not report to the local district office that he was capturing wild boars on the day of the incident. According to materials obtained from Eunpyeong District Office, “If there is a plan for on-site patrol or movement for wild boar capture, the location, personnel, and whether firearms are carried must be notified to our district office in writing or by phone 2 to 3 days in advance.” In addition, A apparently violated rules such as ▲ prohibition of firearm use after sunset ▲ establishment of defensive lines.

The bereaved family also pointed out problems with the police response. A checked out his firearm from the Pyeongchang Police Substation of Jongno Police Station at 5:51 p.m. on April 29. The family said, “When we checked with the Pyeongchang Police Substation, A only brought his ID card, and when the police entered his resident registration number into the computer, the firearm permit appeared, so they issued the firearm without asking any questions,” and questioned, “Is it acceptable to have no proper manual?”

It is known that these circumstances were not revealed during the police and prosecution investigation stages but came to light during the sentencing investigation in the trial.

The bereaved family also said that A did not make efforts to reach a settlement with them. According to them, A’s legal representative contacted them once, but the message was essentially, “Let’s settle for 40 million won combining civil and criminal cases. Please provide your bank account number.”

Court: "Violation of Duty of Care Significant but Not Severe"… General Punishment, Not Aggravated

However, the court’s judgment on A’s violation of duty of care in the course of work appears not to have considered the district office’s permit conditions. According to the ruling, the court stated, “It was nighttime, and the location was adjacent to a bus stop and road where pedestrians could be present, so a person engaged in hunting work using firearms had a duty of care to aim the firearm precisely and confirm that no people were within the firing range before shooting to prevent accidents.”

The court imposed a general punishment (prison sentence of 8 months to 2 years) instead of an aggravated punishment (prison sentence of 1 to 3 years) under the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines. To receive aggravated punishment, the degree of violation of duty of care must be severe. While the court said the degree of violation was “considerable,” it apparently did not judge it as “severe.” However, since B died, probation was not granted according to the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines.

In cases prosecuted for professional negligence resulting in death, most defendants receive sentences of ‘1 year or less in prison.’ Among 211 cases over the past two years where the victim died and general punishment was applied, 150 cases (73%) were sentenced to 1 year or less in prison. Professional negligence resulting in death can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 20 million won.

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