Controversy Over Reduced Sentences for Minor Sex Crimes: Lee Gyunyong Explains "Within Recommended Range"

Lee Gyun-yong, the nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, addressed the controversy regarding his reduction of sentences for sex offenders against minors without special reasons during his tenure at the Seoul High Court, stating that he "carefully determined the sentences within the recommended sentencing range."

Lee Gyun-yong, Chief Judge of the Seoul High Court, who has been nominated as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is answering questions from reporters in front of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the morning of the 23rd. Photo by Joint Press Corps

On the 25th, Lee released a statement saying, "In the appellate court, I have strived to impose appropriate sentences by referring to the recommended sentencing range presented in the sentencing guidelines, based on the belief that sentencing disparities in lower courts should be minimized and objective sentencing should be realized," and explained, "(The controversial case) was derived considering the recommended sentencing range of imprisonment from 4 years to 10 years and 8 months."

Previously, the Criminal Division 8 of the Seoul High Court, where Lee served as presiding judge, overturned the first trial's sentence of 10 years imprisonment and reduced it to 7 years for defendant A, who was indicted in November 2020 on charges of statutory rape of a minor and violation of the Child Welfare Act. After Lee was nominated as Chief Justice, when this ruling became known, some criticized him for lacking 'gender sensitivity.'

Defendant A was accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old victim met through internet chatting three times and engaging in sadistic sexual acts. At the time, the court cited as favorable sentencing factors that he confessed to the crime and that, being in his twenties, there was room for improvement and rehabilitation.

The court also stated, "It is clear that a severe sentence must be imposed on the defendant," but added, "(The sentence) must be carefully determined by comprehensively considering the balance between crime and punishment, the degree of responsibility corresponding to the crime, retribution for the crime, and the purposes of general and special prevention. Considering these factors together, the 10-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the original trial is excessively heavy and unjust," it explained.