Court Recognizes Lee Eunhae's 'Indirect Murder'... "Planned Killing Due to Failure to Provide Rescue Measures"

Application of 'Omission Murder' Instead of 'Direct Murder' by Gaslighting
Court: "Victim's Life Taken Solely for Economic Gain"

Defendants Lee Eun-hae and Jo Hyun-soo in the 'Valley Murder' case [Photo by Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Hyesook] The court has concluded the 'valley murder' case, which involved a legal battle over whether it was a direct murder or not, as 'indirect murder.'

The 15th Criminal Division of the Incheon District Court (Chief Judge Lee Gyuhun) sentenced Lee Eunhae (31, female), who was charged with murder and attempted murder, to life imprisonment, and her accomplice Jo Hyunsoo (30, male) to 30 years in prison at the first trial sentencing hearing held on the 27th.

Although the court did not accept the prosecution's claim of 'commission murder (direct murder)' through gaslighting (psychological control), it recognized the charge of 'omission murder (indirect murder)' as guilty and ruled accordingly. Considering the planned method of the crime, the court stated that the punishment should be at the same level as commission murder and imposed a heavy sentence.

When a prohibited act is directly executed, it is called 'commission,' and when a necessary act is not performed, it is called 'omission.' Usually, the sentence for commission murder is much heavier than for omission murder when recognized as guilty.

The reason the court recognized indirect murder for Lee and others is that they made the victim, who could not swim, jump into the valley and, despite being aware that leaving the victim submerged in water could result in death, they did not take rescue measures. They were aware that the victim could die if left in the water.

Lee shouted "Oppa, jump" to the victim, who hesitated and was reluctant to dive because she could not swim at all, making the victim trust Jo, who was a good swimmer, and jump into the water without any rescue equipment such as a life jacket, with only her bare body.

After the victim jumped into the water and was seen struggling while screaming, Jo did not throw the tube he was wearing, and Lee, although there was a life jacket at the scene, left the spot saying she was going to get a life tube located 58 meters away from the valley.

The court stated, "The defendants did not take any rescue measures such as searching for the submerged victim and guiding her out of the water," and judged that "from the beginning, under the purpose and plan of causing the victim's death, they deliberately did not fulfill their duty to rescue the victim or created the appearance of having fulfilled the duty to disguise the cause of death as an accident."

The court also placed weight on the planned nature of the murder, considering that they had attempted to kill the victim twice before the 'valley murder' case but failed.

Lee had economically exploited her husband, the victim, over several years, and when he became financially worthless due to bankruptcy, she planned with her lover Jo to kill the victim and claim 800 million won in life insurance.

They attempted the first murder by feeding the victim spicy fish stew containing pufferfish poison, and the second by taking the victim to a fishing spot and pushing him into a reservoir. Despite both attempts failing, they did not give up and made the victim jump into the valley, ultimately killing him.

The court stated, "The defendants conspired and executed the planned murder of the victim several times, yet without any remorse, they tried to claim the victim's life insurance for economic gain," and "The victim, who had devoted love and dedication to defendant Lee, ended his life in extreme fear and pain, unaware that he was being murdered due to the greed of his beloved wife and trusted acquaintance."

Although the court did not recognize direct murder by gaslighting against Lee, it applied the charge of indirect murder and imposed a heavy sentence for these reasons.

At the first trial sentencing hearing, the court said, "Defendant Lee led and executed the planned murder for economic gain, taking the victim's life, which is a very serious crime," and added, "Even if the victim had not died from the 'valley murder' incident, it is clear that attempts to kill the victim would have continued."

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