Supreme Court Confirms Life Sentences for Two in Incheon Taxi Robbery-Murder... 17 Years After the Crime

Perpetrators of 16-Year-Old Cold Case Arrested Last Year
Note with Vehicle Manual Used as Tinder Discovered
First Trial: 30 Years Imprisonment → Second Trial: Life Sentence

In 2007, two individuals who murdered a taxi driver with a weapon and robbed him under an overpass road in Incheon were sentenced to life imprisonment 17 years after the crime.

According to the legal community on the 6th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) upheld the original court ruling that sentenced A (48) and B (49), who were charged with robbery and murder, to life imprisonment.

Suspects in the Incheon duo taxi robbery case arrested 16 years after the crime.

The court stated, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment that violates the principles of logic and experience, exceeds the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misinterprets the law regarding the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence."

Additionally, the court added, "Considering the defendants' age, character, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and results of the crime, and circumstances after the crime as recorded, it cannot be said that the lower court's sentence of life imprisonment for the defendants is excessively unjust."

They are accused of robbing 60,000 won in cash from taxi driver C, who was 43 years old at the time, and murdering him around 3 a.m. on July 1, 2007, on the roadside under the Namdong overpass of the 2nd Gyeongin Expressway in Namchon-dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon. After leaving the body at the crime scene and fleeing, they abandoned the taxi 2.8 km away in a residential area, set fire to the back seat, and escaped.

The two, who met at Incheon Detention Center and maintained their relationship after release, conspired to commit robbery against taxi drivers due to lack of steady jobs or income and insufficient living expenses. At the time of the crime, they tied C's hands and forced him into a pre-prepared bag, but when C got out of the bag and struggled, they stabbed and killed him with a weapon.

The prosecution charged the two with robbery and murder for killing C and stealing 60,000 won in cash and a taxi worth about 10 million won, and brought them to trial.

The case, which was nearly left unsolved due to lack of clues to identify the suspects for a long time, gained momentum when the police found latent fingerprints on a vehicle manual booklet used as kindling by the perpetrators.

Forensic analysis concluded that after the crime, the suspects used the vehicle manual as kindling to set fire to the back seat. Due to rain and high humidity at the time, and because the car doors were all closed in a sealed state, the fire partially burned but naturally extinguished due to lack of oxygen.

Police confirmed that the vehicle manual was for a different car model, not the victim's taxi, and judged that the perpetrator brought it from outside. They requested re-examination of fingerprints at the National Forensic Service, which discovered multiple latent fingerprints.

The first trial court sentenced both to 30 years in prison and ordered five years of probation.

During the trial, A completely denied the crime and even denied being at the scene on the day of the crime, but this was not accepted. B admitted to the robbery but claimed he did not participate in the murder, asserting that A committed the murder alone.

However, the court pointed out, "Defendant A maintains an attitude of denying his wrongdoing without reasonable grounds despite various scientific evidence. Defendant B, although admitting to the robbery and murder charges, consistently makes implausible excuses regarding points lacking objective evidence, such as claiming that A acted alone in the murder, and tries to minimize his involvement and responsibility. Considering this, B's confession appears to be a reluctant admission made to avoid criminal liability and gain leniency in sentencing, taking advantage of A's denial. Ultimately, neither defendant can be seen as sincerely reflecting on the crime."

The appellate court accepted the prosecutor's appeal regarding the leniency of the sentence, overturned the first trial ruling, and sentenced both to life imprisonment. The probation order was maintained.

The court stated, "None of the defendants can be seen as sincerely reflecting on the crime. The victim lost a precious life due to this crime, which is an irreparable tragic outcome, and the victim's family has likely lived with indescribable mental pain and sorrow."

It continued, "Even after the defendants' crimes were uncovered, the victim and the family have not recovered from the damage, and watching the defendants deny their crimes or claim they did not commit the murder despite clear scientific evidence in this courtroom likely caused them to relive the shock and sorrow."

The court added, "Although it is difficult to conclude that the defendants had a definite intent to kill the victim from the planning stage, and the killing was somewhat accidental, and despite the defendants having no prior record of violent crimes, even considering all favorable factors, appropriate punishment corresponding to their responsibility is unavoidable. Considering all sentencing factors comprehensively, the original sentence was too lenient and unjust."

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the appellate court's judgment.

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