"That 'First-Time Offender'... Family Devastated by Appellate Ruling in 'Geoje Dating Violence Death' Case"

"Is it acceptable for a first-time offender to kill someone? Even if the perpetrator serves 12 years in prison and is released, he will still be in his 30s, but my daughter can never come back, I can never see her, or touch her again."

This was the statement made by the father of the late Lee Hyojeong, the victim in the so-called 'Geoje Dating Violence Death' case, after the appellate court sentenced the male perpetrator to 12 years in prison, the same sentence as in the first trial.

Busan High Court Changwon Branch. Photo by Se Ryeong Lee

The 1st Criminal Division of the Busan High Court Changwon Branch (Presiding Judges: Min Dalgi, Park Jiyeon, and Park Geonhee) held an appellate hearing on the afternoon of the 21st for defendant A, a man in his 20s, who was charged with inflicting bodily injury resulting in death, stalking (excessive approach behavior), and housebreaking. The court dismissed both the prosecution's and the defendant's appeals, upholding the original verdict.

Defendant A was accused of breaking into the residence of his ex-girlfriend, the late Lee Hyojeong, also in her 20s, on April 1 last year. He reportedly climbed on top of Lee while she was sleeping, struck her head and face, strangled her, and assaulted her violently, resulting in her death.

Due to A's assault, Lee suffered severe injuries including traumatic subdural hemorrhage, which required six weeks of treatment. While hospitalized, she died after 10 days from multiple organ failure caused by sepsis.

It was found that A had repeatedly committed acts of violence, such as slapping Lee's face, after they began dating as high school classmates in April 2022. Even after breaking up with Lee before the incident, A called her 14 times, and when she did not answer, he went to her residence and committed the crime.

The appellate court rejected all of the defendant's claims, including the denial of stalking and housebreaking charges, and the argument that the fatal outcome of the assault could not have been foreseen. The court also dismissed the claim that the sentence was too severe.

The court stated, "The victim did not want to speak directly with the defendant or meet him, but the defendant continued to call her and even went to her residence, causing the victim to feel anxiety and fear."

The court continued, "The defendant, who is physically robust, broke into the victim's home while intoxicated, strangled and beat her while she was sleeping, and assaulted a victim who was more vulnerable than himself without restraint. Given the areas struck and the number of blows, an ordinary person could objectively foresee death as a result of these actions."

The court further stated, "The defendant has not fully acknowledged his guilt, has not made active efforts to compensate the bereaved family or to heal their pain, and it is questionable whether he truly feels remorse."

Nevertheless, the court also noted, "When visible trauma such as swelling of the victim's head appeared due to the assault, the defendant stopped and contacted the victim's mother. There is no evidence that the crime was premeditated or that the defendant intended to kill the victim, who had ended their relationship. Considering these factors, as well as the fact that this was his first offense, the original verdict is appropriate."

Women's organizations in the Gyeongnam region are condemning the appellate court ruling in the 'Geoje Dating Violence Death' case and urging the enactment of the Dating Violence Punishment Act. Photo by Lee Seryung

The victim's father attended the trial alone that day. Lee's mother was unable to attend the previous sentencing hearing due to poor health.

After losing his daughter, the father said at a press conference held immediately after the sentencing, "Honestly, I was hoping for a life sentence or a verdict equivalent to murder."

He added, "It has now been a year since my daughter died. I feel like I have been running helplessly all this time," and continued, "To be honest, I am not satisfied with today's appellate ruling."

He then questioned, "As the judge said, the perpetrator is a first-time offender. So does that mean a first-time offender can kill someone?"

"No matter how many years in prison he serves, what matters is that he is still alive. My daughter can never come back," he said. "Even now, it feels like my daughter might walk in and call me 'Dad.' I sincerely hope nothing like this ever happens again."

After the press conference, he expressed his frustration, saying, "Should I take comfort in the fact that the sentence was not reduced?"

"A human life was taken. Even if a life sentence had been handed down, could I be satisfied?" he said. "Still, the perpetrator must pay a just penalty. The perpetrator is alive and will be able to live his life after being released."

"What hurts the most is that the perpetrator has never offered a sincere apology or shown genuine remorse, and I have not received an apology from the perpetrator's parents either," he said, revealing his pain.

When briefly meeting the victim's father after the press conference, he was drenched in sweat from facing the detailed description of the assault and the sentencing in the courtroom.

He said, "I am worried about my wife, who keeps saying she wants to follow our daughter. I also get choked up at work, but as the head of the family, I cannot give up."

He left, saying, "I just wish my daughter could come back alive."

At the press conference, 81 organizations, including the Gyeongnam Women's Association, Gyeongnam Women's Organizations United, Gyeongnam Women's Solidarity, and the Gyeongnam Women's Welfare Counseling Center Facilities Council, condemned the court, calling the punishment a "slap on the wrist."

The organizations called for a comprehensive overhaul of investigative manuals for dating violence, harsher sentencing for assault and bodily injury resulting in death within intimate relationships, and the enactment of the Dating Violence Punishment Act.

They stated, "A 12-year sentence, the same as the first trial, cannot be considered a severe punishment. Given the severity and repeated nature of the violence, the victim's suffering, the perpetrator's lack of remorse, and the pain of the bereaved family, a heavier sentence should have been imposed." They emphasized, "The perpetrator's crime is not a typical case of bodily injury resulting in death, but a heinous crime that deserves aggravated punishment."

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