Supreme Court: "It is Appropriate to Reduce Both Upper and Lower Limits of Imprisonment Sentences"

[Asia Economy Reporter Bae Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court plenary session has ruled that the upper and lower limits set by law can be uniformly applied when there are reasons to reduce the sentence in a criminal trial.

On the 21st, the Supreme Court plenary session (Presiding Justice Lee Gitaek) upheld the original ruling sentencing Yoon Mo, who was indicted on charges of attempted special injury and assault, to 8 months in prison with a 2-year probation period.

The statutory penalty for special injury is imprisonment for 1 to 10 years, but the appellate court, based on the Criminal Act provision that "the sentence for an attempted crime can be reduced compared to the completed crime," found that the legal conditions for reduction were met and sentenced below the statutory minimum.

Yoon was indicted on charges of assault for stabbing an employee’s face with coated paper and grabbing, shaking, and dragging the employee after a dispute over a bar tab at a karaoke bar in Pocheon City in December 2016. He was also charged with attempted special injury for cursing the owner Kim Mo and stabbing Kim’s chest with a kitchen knife, but Kim pushed Yoon’s hand away, only tearing his clothes.

Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act stipulates imprisonment from 1 year to 10 years for causing bodily injury with a dangerous object and punishes attempts as well. Article 25 punishes attempts when the criminal act is not completed or the result does not occur and allows for reduced sentences for attempts compared to completed crimes. Article 55 sets the scope of legal reduction, stating that "when reducing imprisonment or detention, the term shall be reduced by half."

The first trial sentenced Yoon to 8 months imprisonment with 2 years probation, ordered probation supervision, and 120 hours of community service. For the attempted special injury charge, the sentence range was set to "6 months to 5 years imprisonment," reducing both the short term "1 year or more" and the long term "up to 10 years" by half. The second trial upheld the first trial’s decision.

The Supreme Court plenary session dismissed Yoon’s appeal and decided to maintain the current practice. The court stated, "Current precedents and practice allow judges discretion to apply or not apply legal reductions, and when judges apply legal reductions, both the upper and lower limits are halved according to Article 55 of the Criminal Act. This interpretation remains valid."

However, Justice Lee Gitaek issued a separate opinion calling for a new interpretation. He stated, "It should be understood that the sentencing range can be set across both cases where reduction is applied and where it is not. Combining both ranges to determine the sentence is equivalent to simply reducing only the statutory minimum," he pointed out.