The Story of a Father Who Stood in Court After Leaving His Youngest Son at Home

Father Who Only Came Back on Weekends Due to Work
Tried for Child Neglect Charges
Court Sentences Suspended Prison Term

This is the story of a father in his 50s who left his elementary school-aged son alone while going to work and only returned on weekends. He was prosecuted and tried on charges of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abandonment and neglect). The court’s first ruling came on the 23rd of last month. Guilty. The sentence was 8 months in prison with a 2-year probation.

The verdict document containing the criminal facts and the court’s judgment is two pages long on A4 paper. This length is far too short to fully grasp the substantive truth behind the case. However, there are several clues from which the sequence of events can be inferred.

The defendant, Mr. A (55), left his son alone at their home in Nam-gu, Ulsan, in July 2021. He reportedly left for work in Pohang. He only returned on weekends. During that time, his 12-year-old son, Mr. B, lived alone and attended school by himself. Their “weekend father” lifestyle continued for about four months, until the end of October that year.

The weekend father lifestyle came to an end after Mr. B’s homeroom teacher reported the situation. Under the current Child Abuse Punishment Act, 25 occupational groups including elementary, middle, and high school teachers are required to report to investigative authorities if they become aware of or suspect child abuse crimes. It appears the homeroom teacher did not neglect this reporting duty after learning about Mr. B’s circumstances.

The investigative authorities transferred the case as a child protection case. A child protection case refers to a case where the prosecutor deems protective measures more appropriate than punishment and sends it to the family court. In such cases, the court’s maximum disposition against the offender is 200 hours of community service or attendance orders. Since protective measures are not part of criminal proceedings, no criminal record remains.

However, Mr. A did not comply with the court’s protective disposition, which was presumed to be community service or attendance orders. The court eventually canceled the protective disposition, and Mr. A was brought before the criminal court. This happened in October 2022.

Mr. A did not deny the charges in court. He had already been informed by the investigative authorities that his actions constituted a crime. Under the current Child Welfare Act, Article 17, Clause 6 prohibits “abandoning a child under one’s protection or supervision or neglecting basic care, including food, clothing, shelter, nurturing, treatment, and education.” Violations are punishable under Article 71, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 of the same law by imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of up to 50 million won.

During the defense, Mr. A likely pleaded for leniency from the court. It is expected that his argument included that he had to work to make a living and therefore had no choice but to leave his son alone on weekdays. Presiding Judge Han Yun-ok of the Ulsan District Court Criminal Division 5, who heard the case, also took these circumstances into consideration. The sentencing rationale left by Judge Han in the verdict is as follows:

“Although the degree of neglect in protecting and nurturing the victim child is not light, the defendant has shown no intention to correct the situation or improve it, so the culpability is not light. However, considering that the defendant is a first-time offender, acknowledges his wrongdoing, and taking into account other sentencing factors such as the defendant’s age and character as revealed during the trial, the sentence is determined accordingly.”

Neither Mr. A nor the prosecution filed an appeal, and this ruling was finalized on the 3rd of this month. This means a criminal record will remain. Mr. A must also complete 40 hours of child abuse recidivism prevention lectures as ordered by the court in the future.