[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The wife among a couple who left their 7-month-old daughter alone at home for six days, resulting in her death, will face a retrial in the second trial. The previous appellate court sentenced the wife, who was a minor at the time of the crime, to the shorter term of the indeterminate sentence given in the first trial, based on the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes. However, the Supreme Court overturned and remanded the case, changing the precedent to require sentencing based on the median term.
On the 22nd, the Supreme Court en banc overturned the original ruling sentencing B (19, female) to seven years in prison in the appeal trial of the couple A (22) and B, who were tried on charges including murder and corpse abandonment, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court. The en banc stated, "The principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes is a rule that prohibits imposing a heavier sentence than the lower court to guarantee the defendant's right to appeal, but it does not mean that the defendant must always receive a favorable outcome." However, the en banc dismissed both parties' appeals regarding A, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison in the appellate court, confirming the sentence due to no sentencing error.
The couple A was indicted on charges of leaving their 7-month-old daughter alone at their home in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, for six days in May last year, going out, and not returning home, resulting in the child's death. It was also investigated that the couple placed the deceased daughter inside a ramen box, went out again, and did not attend the funeral.
In the first trial last year, the court sentenced the adult husband to 20 years in prison and the wife, who was a juvenile at the time, to an indeterminate sentence ranging from 15 years to 7 years. After the first trial, the couple appealed, claiming the sentence was too harsh, but the prosecution did not appeal. Under current law, if the prosecutor does not appeal, the second trial cannot impose a sentence heavier than the first trial. Moreover, this year, the wife became an adult not subject to the Juvenile Act. In this case, the existing Supreme Court precedent held that the 'short term of 7 years' sentenced to B as a juvenile offender was the maximum sentence that could be imposed in the appellate court. This is the so-called principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes.
The issue in the appeal trial was also this point. The court examined whether it was appropriate to consider the short term (7 years) among the indeterminate sentences given to B in the first trial as the upper limit, or whether it was reasonable to use the long term (15 years) or a point in between as the standard. The en banc concluded that the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes should be judged based on the median term between the long and short terms. The en banc stated, "The lower court sentenced B based on the premise that the upper limit of the sentence was 7 years according to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes, but due to the change in precedent, this case allows sentencing up to 11 years."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
