Supreme Court Overturns and Remands 'Jeju Lawyer Murder' Case... Acquittal on Murder Charge Intended

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court has issued a ruling stating that it is difficult to recognize the establishment of joint principal offender liability for murder against the defendant in his 50s in the 'Jeju Lawyer Murder' case, which was solved following a tip-off to SBS's 'Unanswered Questions'.

On the 12th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) overturned and remanded the lower court's ruling that had sentenced Kim (57), who was indicted on charges of murder and intimidation related to the 1999 'Jeju Lawyer Murder' case, to 12 years in prison, while affirming his guilt for murder and intimidation.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

The court pointed out, "The defendant's tip-off testimony was found to contradict objective facts in key parts, and it is difficult to say that sufficient additional evidence or grounds to recognize the credibility of the remaining testimony were submitted. Therefore, it cannot be considered to have the credibility to exclude reasonable doubt and prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also difficult to recognize the defendant's intent and conspiracy to commit murder solely based on circumstantial evidence such as the crime scene situation."

It continued, "Conversely, the lower court's ruling, which found the charges guilty solely based on the defendant's tip-off testimony and circumstantial evidence, misapplied the law regarding the degree of proof required in criminal trials, the assessment of the credibility of testimony, and the intent and conspiracy for murder. This violated the limits of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, ignored the necessary thorough examination for recognizing the charges, and thus made a serious factual error affecting the judgment," explaining the reason for overturning and remanding.

The 'Jeju Lawyer Murder' case involves the stabbing and killing of lawyer Lee Seung-yong on the streets of Jeju City on November 5, 1999.

Initially almost remaining an unsolved cold case, the case took a turn when Kim, mistakenly believing the statute of limitations for the murder had expired, tipped off SBS's 'Unanswered Questions' in October 2019 through a junior colleague.

In a phone call with SBS PD A, Kim expressed his intention to reveal his involvement in the crime, and during a face-to-face interview conducted in Siem Reap, Cambodia, where he was staying, he stated, "Baek, the boss of a violent gang in Jeju, ordered us to intimidate lawyer Lee and stab his leg. I conspired with Son, a friend from Busan nicknamed 'Seagull'." He also said, "Son stabbed lawyer Lee, but things went wrong, and he died." Son had already passed away in August 2014 by suicide.

All these statements were recorded and aired in two episodes of 'Unanswered Questions' in 2020.

However, after the broadcast, when the police launched a reinvestigation based on the broadcast content, Kim sent multiple threatening messages to A, believing the police investigation was due to the interview with A. He said things like, "I am going to Korea soon. You killed me twice, so I have to repay you halfway to end our relationship."

Kim, who was illegally residing in Cambodia, was caught by local authorities in June last year and deported to South Korea. He was then prosecuted for intimidation against A and murder of lawyer Lee.

Kim Mo, the criminal forcibly repatriated in 2021.

Both the first and second trials found Kim guilty of intimidation.

In the lower courts, the statute of limitations for murder was also an issue. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, the statute of limitations is suspended if the accused is abroad to evade criminal punishment. Kim argued that the 15-year statute of limitations had already expired on November 5, 2014, under the pre-amended law.

Kim admitted that he left for Macau on March 19, 2014, and stayed until April 18 of the following year but claimed it was not to evade criminal punishment, so the statute of limitations should not be suspended. This argument was rejected.

The first and second trials differed in their judgments on Kim's murder charge. The key issue was whether Kim could be seen as having committed the murder jointly with Son, who directly carried out the stabbing, through prior conspiracy and functional control at the time of the crime, given that Son had died.

The first trial acquitted Kim of the murder charge, recognizing only the intimidation charge, and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months in prison.

After reviewing Kim's various statements about the murder circumstances, the court said, "The prosecutor's inference is not impossible and appears somewhat persuasive," but added, "However, the facts to infer the intent and conspiracy, which are elements of the crime, must be recognized by strict proof. In this case, the only direct evidence to confirm whether the defendant received instructions from an unidentified superior and the content thereof is the defendant's own testimony."

It further stated, "Much of the prosecutor's basis for concluding guilt relies solely on inferences about possibilities without evidence to support them, and the circumstances regarding the principal offender's crime and other factors are insufficient to exclude reasonable doubt about the defendant, who was not identified as the principal offender who killed the victim at the scene, and to infer the intent and functional control over the murder charge."

However, the second trial's judgment differed. The second trial found Kim guilty of the murder charge, which the first trial had acquitted, and sentenced him to 12 years in prison.

The court stated, "It can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant conspired with Son to kill the victim as stated in the indictment," and "Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the defendant of this charge, so the lower court's ruling contains errors such as factual misrecognition, and the prosecutor's claim pointing this out is valid," overturning the first trial's ruling.

The court found that Kim was aware of the risk that death could result and ordered Son to inflict injuries with a knife to major parts of the victim's body, such as the leg, causing functional impairment.

The court judged that Kim and Son conspired to commit the crime with at least implied awareness or foresight that the victim might die, and an internal intention to tolerate this, i.e., "intent to kill," based on the facts that Kim ordered the use of a specially made knife without preventive measures such as taping the weapon (which gangsters use to avoid fatal injuries), received information from Son obtained through stalking and surveillance of the victim, and provided Son with escape funds after the crime.

The court concluded, "Since it can be recognized that the defendant shared the execution of the act through functional control by making an essential contribution to the crime, the defendant cannot escape liability as a joint principal offender for murder."

The Supreme Court reversed the conclusion again.

The court first stated, "In criminal trials, the recognition of criminal facts must be based on strict evidence that convinces the judge beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor's evidence does not reach that level of certainty, even if there are circumstances suggesting guilt, the judgment must be made in favor of the defendant."

The court pointed out objective facts clearly contradicting parts of Kim's testimony, such as that Baek was imprisoned in Gwangju Prison until November 1999 despite Kim's claim that he received orders from Baek in the summer of 1999 to punish the lawyer, and that Son was sent to Seoul two days after the crime and Kim did not return to Jeju for 4-5 years, while records show Son committed an assault crime in Jeju City in August 2001 during a dispute over vehicle passage. The court judged, "The defendant's tip-off testimony cannot be considered to have the credibility to exclude reasonable doubt and prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial."

The court also stated, "There is no objective evidence or specific circumstances supporting the defendant's tip-off testimony. Especially since the defendant was charged as a joint principal offender who did not directly execute the act, to recognize the defendant's functional control, the specific status and role of each actor throughout the entire crime must be concretely proven. There is no objective evidence or specific circumstances supporting the defendant's testimony about Son's execution of the act."

A Supreme Court official explained, "This ruling emphasizes the presumption of innocence by requiring more cautious judgment on whether the defendant's testimony consistent with the charges has the credibility to exclude reasonable doubt and prove the charges in criminal trials."

He added, "The ruling is also significant in that it provides standards for recognizing intent to kill and joint principal offender liability based solely on indirect evidence without direct evidence, offering guidance to lower courts in similar cases."

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