[Exclusive] 40-Year-Old Father Sentenced to 13 Years for Habitually Sexually Assaulting His Elementary School Daughter

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] “Honorable presiding judge, I have not been a lawyer for long, and this is my first time handling a sexual crime case involving a biological daughter. The child, born in 2007 and now just 13 years old, should never have had to endure such an experience, and no defense or logic can explain it.” (Victim’s lawyer)

A father who sexually assaulted his elementary school-aged biological daughter for several years was sentenced to 13 years in prison in the first trial. During the six court appearances, he never once looked toward the gallery where his wife, the daughter’s biological mother, was seated.

According to the legal community on the 16th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 29 (Presiding Judge Kim Changhyung) recently sentenced Lee (42) to 13 years in prison on charges including violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (sexual intercourse with a minor under 13 by deception or force). After serving the sentence, Lee was also ordered to refrain from contacting or approaching the victim for three years under probation. However, the request for attaching an electronic location tracking device (electronic anklet) was dismissed.

The court stated, “The victim is a child and adolescent who is still unable to fully exercise sexual self-determination rights,” and pointed out, “The defendant, who had a duty to protect and support, used the victim as a tool to satisfy his sexual desires, which is a serious offense.”

Earlier, Lee was prosecuted for repeatedly committing sexual violence over three years, including molesting A, who was in the fourth grade of elementary school in the summer of 2017, and then raping her from the following year. Investigations revealed that he committed these crimes whenever his wife B was out.

Initially, Lee’s side admitted in court to the molestation and sexual acts and expressed deep remorse but claimed that the first sexual intercourse occurred not in 2018 but from last year.

In response, the victim’s lawyer argued that Lee’s side was causing secondary harm by falsely discrediting A’s testimony to remove the charge of ‘sexual intercourse with a minor under 13’ from the indictment. The lawyer emphasized, “A clearly testified that she was raped from early fifth grade, and although Lee’s side is seeking a settlement, it is impossible under these circumstances.”

Article 302 of the current Criminal Act stipulates that “Anyone who commits sexual intercourse or molestation against a minor by deception or force shall be punished by imprisonment for up to five years,” but if the victim is a child or adolescent under 13, the Sexual Violence Punishment Act applies, which can impose life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years or more.

The victim’s lawyer criticized, “B was also a victim of sexual crime in the past and finds physical contact with others extremely difficult, to the extent that she cannot use public transportation. The defendant must have been well aware of the trauma of a sexual crime victim while watching his wife, yet he committed such an inhumane crime.”

There was almost a situation where A had to testify in court regarding the timing of the first offense, but Lee eventually admitted all charges before sentencing. It is known that he submitted 18 letters of apology and 5 book reports while in custody.

The court stated, “The victim is currently unable to socialize with others and has attempted self-harm, unable to escape from suffering, and the victim’s mother is also distressed, blaming herself for not preventing the incident.”

It added, “However, the defendant has admitted all charges and shown remorse in court, has no prior criminal record, and both the defendant and his parents are seeking forgiveness by providing financial compensation to the victim’s side through methods such as selling real estate. All circumstances presented during the trial were comprehensively considered.”

Meanwhile, both the prosecution and the defendant have filed appeals against this ruling.