Pray or Martyrdom?... The Mystery of Husband's Death After '10 Years of Caregiving' [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

'Aftermath of a Traffic Accident' Wife Cared for Husband for 10 Years
Couple Fights Over Husband's Forced Early Morning Prayer
Appeals Court Overturns First Trial, Sentences to 2 Years 6 Months in Prison

[Image source=Getty Images]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] "Why do you think your husband passed away?" (Presiding Judge)

"Well... Since he passed away while praying, I thought it might be 'martyrdom'." (Defendant)

On the 8th of last month, in a courtroom on the 3rd floor of the Seoul High Court, Chief Judge Choi Suhwan of the 13th Criminal Division said to A (59, female), who is accused of murder, "Please tell us what you remember from the day before the victim passed away until the day of his death, in intervals of 3 to 4 minutes."

On the night of December 18, 2017, A had a big fight with her husband B and scratched his face and other areas. This was because B had been forcing her to attend 'early morning prayers' for three hours every day since the beginning of the year. A had been taking care of B daily for the past 10 years since he became unable to move on his own due to aftereffects of a traffic accident, including assisting with his toileting. She had quit her job, but the hospital bills alone amounted to 7 million won annually.

The couple argued again the next day over the early morning prayers. Around 2 p.m. that day, B passed away. Besides the scratches A inflicted the previous day, subcutaneous hemorrhages caused by some form of pressure were found on B’s face and neck. The prosecution indicted A on charges of strangling B and covering his nose and mouth to kill him. A denied the charges.

This case had resulted in a not guilty verdict in the first trial. The appellate court examined five possible causes of B’s death. ▲Death by illness ▲Accidental death ▲Suicide ▲Homicide by A ▲Homicide by a third party.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

First, the National Forensic Service autopsy found no disease that could have caused B’s death. There was no evidence suggesting B died from an accident. A also did not provide such testimony. It was unlikely that B, who could not even wash his face or shave by himself, committed suicide. The only person who was with B during the two days before his death was A. Only one possibility remained.

The key was the testimony of forensic pathologist C from the National Forensic Service who conducted B’s autopsy. Initially, he stated, "It is difficult to exclude the possibility of obstructive asphyxia (suffocation caused by blockage of the nose or mouth) based solely on the autopsy findings," but he listed the cause of death as 'undetermined.' This was the background for the first trial’s conclusion that "based on the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone, it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that A intentionally strangled B to kill him."

However, forensic pathologist C appeared in the appellate court and emphasized, "Whether it was obstructive asphyxia cannot be definitively diagnosed based solely on autopsy findings. Ultimately, it must be judged comprehensively with the investigation results."

On the 19th, the court overturned the first trial’s verdict, stating, "There is a causal relationship between A’s actions and B’s death, and A’s intent can be recognized," and sentenced A to 2 years and 6 months in prison. However, the court explained the sentencing reasons, saying, "The defendant had been consistently caring for the victim for over 10 years, quit her job, and suffered economic and mental difficulties. The victim’s sibling pleaded for leniency. The son expressed a wish not to pursue punishment."

A was immediately taken into custody in the courtroom. She appealed the second trial’s verdict.