Busan Roundhouse Kick Man Who Enraged Prosecutor: "I Didn't Know the Victim Was a Woman"

Brazen Attitude During Investigation... Prosecutor's Anger
Perpetrator: "I Would Have Followed Even If He Were Male"

The so-called 'Busan spinning kick incident' perpetrator was shown denying the crime during police interrogation, saying, "I am a bad person, but not a barbarian." He claimed he did not know the victim was a woman, but his statement was proven false during the prosecution's investigation.

The perpetrator of the 'Busan 돌려차기 incident' who stated that he did not know the victim was female.
[Photo by Wave, captured from 'Evil Reporter']

The recently released Wavve JTBC documentary 'Evil Reporting' features the perpetrator A of the Busan spinning kick incident undergoing police questioning.

When the police asked A, "What did you do after taking (the victim to the blind spot)? Did you go that way?" A replied, "I think I just slapped her. (The victim suddenly fainted) and I kept slapping her repeatedly."

A continued, "I hope I didn't do that, but it doesn't make sense to do that (sexual assault) in that state. That's really nonsense," and added, "I know I'm a really bad person for doing this, but I'm not a barbarian."

Regarding a witness's claim that "the victim's pants zipper was open," A firmly denied it, saying, "(Other crimes) I absolutely did not commit. I even have a girlfriend." He explained, "When I dragged (the victim) like this, her top might have ridden up at that time."

Later, the police charged A with 'serious injury,' but the prosecution judged it as attempted murder.

During the prosecution's investigation, when asked, "Did you think the victim was a man?" A answered, "I wasn't sure if it was a man or a woman." When the prosecutor asked, "If the victim had been a large man, would you have followed him?" A claimed, "I would have followed anyway."

The victim's appearance captured on CCTV on the day of the incident. [Photo by Wave, captured from 'Evil Investigation']

The prosecutor pointed out A's claim, saying, "(The victim) has long hair, right? If it were short hair, that might be understandable, but the hair reaches the waist. There's no way you couldn't know."

Then, when the prosecutor asked, "You said you attacked the victim because she glared at you, so that means you made eye contact. Does that mean you thought she was a man?" A insisted, "At first, I really thought she was a man," continuing to claim he did not know she was a woman.

Subsequent persistent questioning by the prosecutor revealed that A had given false statements.

When A claimed that the conversation with the detective during the police investigation represented his position, the prosecutor shouted, "What kind of detective would say that? Who is this detective who knows your mind like that? That is a wrong investigation method," and added, "Don't think that means you are innocent. Do you understand?"

CCTV footage taken on the day of the so-called 'Busan 돌려차기' incident. [Photo provided by the victim]

The Supreme Court upheld the 20-year prison sentence handed down by the lower court to A, who was charged with violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (rape and attempted murder).

A is currently detained in a detention center but has made retaliatory remarks toward the victim, such as, "If this hadn't been publicized, it would have been a 3-year sentence, but because of XXX, I got 12 years (in the first trial)," "If the sentence is increased in the appeal, I will immediately run out to kill the victim X," and "If I had known it would be like this, I should have just killed her at first," leading to additional investigations.

The victim criticized the first trial court for considering the submission of a letter of apology as a reason for sentence reduction, saying, "Throughout the first trial, I never once admitted to attempted murder, so I could not accept how the perpetrator's remorse was recognized at all."

She added, "What does remorse, admission, or an unfortunate background that has nothing to do with the crime have to do with this trial? If the victim does not forgive, why does the judge forgive at their own discretion? The state is causing secondary harm to the victim," appealing for justice.

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