Supreme Court Confirms 40-Year Sentence for Kim Byeongchan in 'Stalking Retaliation Murder' Case

35 Years Imprisonment in First Trial → 40 Years in Second Trial
Judged as a Premeditated Revenge Murder Crime

On November 29, 2021, the suspect Kim Byung-chan, who was receiving personal protection due to stalking, was transferred from Seoul Namdaemun Police Station to the prosecution for killing his ex-girlfriend./Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A heavy sentence has been confirmed for Kim Byung-chan (37), who brutally murdered his ex-lover after stalking her.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 10th that it dismissed all of Kim's appeals in the final trial. Kim was detained and prosecuted on charges including retaliatory murder and retaliatory threats under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, special threats, special confinement, injury, threats, trespassing, and violations of the Stalking Punishment Act. The court upheld the original sentence of 40 years in prison.

The court also confirmed the order for Kim to wear an electronic tracking device for 15 years, a prohibition on approaching or contacting the victim's bereaved family, and the obligation to complete 40 hours of a violence treatment program.

The court explained the reason for dismissing the appeal, stating, "Considering the reasons for the original judgment in light of relevant legal principles and properly admitted evidence, there is no error in the original court's judgment that violates the rules of logic and experience or exceeds the limits of free evaluation of evidence."

Furthermore, the court added, "Considering various sentencing factors reflected in the records, such as the defendant and the applicant for the attachment order's age, character, environment, relationship with the victim, motives, means and results of each crime in this case, and circumstances after the crimes, even if the circumstances claimed in the appeal are taken into account, it cannot be said that the original court's sentence of 40 years imprisonment is excessively unfair."

Kim was tried on charges of stabbing his ex-girlfriend B (32 at the time of death) 14 times with a weapon and killing her on November 19, 2021, in the parking lot of an officetel in Jung-gu, Seoul, after she reported him to the police for stalking and refused to meet him.

Kim and B had maintained a romantic relationship from January 2020 until June 25, 2021. However, unable to endure Kim's financial incompetence and violent tendencies, B informed Kim of their breakup on June 26, 2021, by placing his belongings outside her home in Jung-gu, Seoul.

Despite this, Kim continued to approach B, leading her to call 112 (emergency number), after which Kim received a stalking warning from the police and was ordered to leave.

Nevertheless, Kim persistently harassed B by trespassing, threatening, confining, and committing stalking crimes, forcing her to meet him despite her refusal.

On November 7, 2021, Kim was separated and ordered to leave by police officers who responded to B's 112 call regarding stalking. Two days later, after receiving a provisional order from the Seoul Central District Court prohibiting him from approaching B, Kim, overwhelmed by extreme hatred and anger, decided to kill her.

During the investigation, it was revealed that on November 10, 2021, the day after receiving the provisional order, Kim searched for terms such as "sashimi knife," "cutter knife - kitchen knife for stabbing," "stabbing with a knife," "knife handle slip," "Seoul knife sharpening," and "Woohwangcheongsimwon" (a traditional herbal medicine).

Kim attempted to visit B's home and call her to cancel her stalking report, but as B continued to avoid contact and meetings and did not cancel the report, Kim's resolve to kill her hardened.

On November 18, 2021, Kim purchased a hat to cover his face during the crime and a 28cm kitchen knife to use in the attack. The next day, he went to B's home.

After confirming B's car was parked in the underground third-floor parking lot, Kim moved to the third floor where B lived via the emergency stairs, hid on the stairs, and waited for B to come out. Around 11:25 a.m., he approached B as she left her home, threatening her with the prepared weapon and forcing her to open the front door.

When B refused to open the door, Kim tried to drag her to the emergency stairs, but when she resisted, he took her phone and threatened her with the weapon, saying, "Cancel the report."

Because she did not obey, Kim stabbed B multiple times in the neck, back, and chest with the weapon he had prepared, killing her.

In addition, Kim was charged with multiple counts of stalking, injury, and trespassing against B from December 2020 onward.

The first trial court found Kim guilty on all charges, sentencing him to 35 years in prison, ordering the attachment of an electronic monitoring device, and imposing various compliance obligations.

The court judged Kim's crime as a planned retaliatory offense.

The court pointed out, "The defendant prepared the knife before visiting the victim and searched online for methods to stab without slipping, indicating the crime was premeditated. He stabbed the victim 14 times in vital areas such as the neck, abdomen, and back with a kitchen knife, demonstrating cruelty in the method."

It also stated, "The defendant shows poor empathy in the emotional domain, lacks reflection or responsibility for his actions, has no realistic or long-term goals in lifestyle, and has risk factors such as juvenile delinquency, indicating a risk of reoffending in murder."

The court added, "The crime is extremely cruel and serious in result, reflecting very poor criminal nature. Although the defendant testified in court that he wished the victim had lived, he attacked her until she collapsed completely and fled without seeking help or reporting, making his statement unbelievable."

The court emphasized, "This crime was committed out of anger and revenge because the victim reported the defendant to the police and avoided meeting him, without the defendant reflecting on his own faults. Such retaliatory crimes not only infringe on the victim's personal legal interests but also obstruct the discovery of substantive truth and exercise of criminal punishment, requiring stricter penalties."

However, the court noted, "Considering that before this crime, the defendant had only one juvenile protection case, fines of 700,000 KRW for theft, and 2 million KRW for violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, with no other significant criminal record, and that no clear criminal tendencies were evident before this crime, it is difficult to conclude that depriving the defendant of life or permanently isolating him from society is absolutely necessary," explaining why the death penalty or life imprisonment was not imposed.

The second trial court also found no problem with the first trial's guilty verdict. However, it accepted the prosecution's appeal that the 35-year sentence was too light and increased the sentence to 40 years.

The court stated, "'Human life' is an irreplaceable and precious value that must be protected under any circumstances. Murder is a serious crime that infringes on this invaluable value, with severe consequences and irreparable damage, and cannot be justified for any reason."

It continued, "Nevertheless, the defendant submitted a letter of remorse on June 8, 2022, just before the first trial's verdict, stating, 'Even if I do well a hundred times, one mistake makes everything seem like my fault, and it all comes back to me. Although it is regrettable, I can only feel sorry when I think about my mistakes.' However, during this appeal, he reversed his claim, denying any intent of revenge, raising doubts about his sincere remorse."

Finally, the court noted, "In this situation, the victim's family and acquaintances express indescribable deep pain over their loss. The defendant's lawyer submitted a sentencing investigation request, stating that the defendant's family and relatives wish to offer a certain amount of compensation as an apology, but the victim's bereaved family firmly rejected it, citing concerns that it might influence sentencing, and repeatedly petitioned for severe punishment of the defendant. Considering these circumstances comprehensively, it is necessary to impose strict criminal responsibility commensurate with the gravity of the defendant's crime," explaining the sentencing rationale.

The Supreme Court also agreed that the second trial court's judgment was correct.