After 9 Hours of Heated Debate, Majority Verdict "Guilty"... A Citizen Jury Trial Experience on 'Motorcycle Accident'

Experience with Special Injury and Insult Cases as Shadow Juror
Disagreement Leads to Majority Verdict: "Insult Fine 1 Million KRW, Special Injury Not Guilty"
Actual Sentence: Insult Fine 1.5 Million KRW, Special Injury Not Guilty

"I solemnly swear to deliver a truthful verdict."

On the 17th at 11:10 a.m., the Seoul Southern District Court Criminal Division 11 (Presiding Judge Jeong Doseong) conducted a citizen participation trial starting with the oath of Juror No. 1. To the left side of the courtroom, next to the prosecution’s seat, sat the final eight juror candidates selected through a procedure. Since 2008, the court has provided ordinary citizens the opportunity to participate as jurors in criminal trials, judging the guilt or innocence of the accused and sentencing. Among the eight, one is randomly drawn near the end of the trial to be classified as an alternate juror and thus excluded from the deliberation process discussing the defendant’s guilt and sentencing. The alternate juror serves as a backup in case a juror cannot continue. The reporter attended the trial as one of the 12 “shadow jurors,” who do not influence the verdict but observe the trial and conduct separate mock deliberations. Shadow jurors participate in the citizen participation trial following the same procedures as jurors but watch from the gallery and hold separate mock verdict sessions.

Courtroom 406 at Seoul Southern District Court where the citizen participation trial was held on the 17th.
[Photo by Seoul Southern District Court]

The defendant standing trial that day was Park Mo (38, male), accused of special assault and insult. According to the prosecution, on September 17 last year at 6:25 p.m., in an apartment complex in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Park was riding a motorcycle when a man in his 50s named Gong Mo, who was walking with his wife, asked him to detour because the area was a no-motorcycle zone. Angered, Park allegedly struck Gong with his motorcycle and then verbally abused him while Gong was on the ground, leading to the trial.

At first, hearing only the charges, I thought I should listen to the victim’s side. However, my opinion changed after watching video evidence presented by the defense. Showing a silent video of about five minutes, Park’s defense attorney argued, “Gong approached the front of the motorcycle as Park swerved right to avoid him, and Park applied the brakes within 0.3 seconds.” On the other hand, the prosecution argued, “It is foreseeable that if a person is in front, a collision will occur,” asserting that “conditional intent (dolus eventualis) can be recognized.” To help jurors understand, the prosecution explained that “conditional intent is recognized when the possibility of the result is sufficiently foreseeable even if the person did not fully acknowledge it.” However, watching the video, Park’s turning of the handlebar to the right was visible, lending more credibility to the defense’s claim that he tried to avoid the collision. All jurors focused intently on the CCTV footage.

During witness and defendant questioning, a conclusion was reached on the key issue of whether the defendant’s words constituted insult. A witness who appeared testified, “I don’t remember the exact insults, but (Park) said things like ‘Have you been to the military? A real man whispers to a woman,’ showing a bad attitude, so I watched carefully.” Notably, when the court asked if the content heard was unfair or humiliating, the witness answered “Yes.” Since this was a citizen participation trial, jurors were also given the opportunity to ask questions directly. One juror asked Park, “How do you think the victim felt?” Park replied, “Since it was a situation where aggressive words were exchanged, I don’t think he cared much.” Park chuckled intermittently during the witness questioning. I thought it was important to pay close attention not only to the content of the defendant’s and witness’s statements but also to their demeanor, as it could influence the judge’s decision.

After the questioning, the prosecution requested the court to sentence Park to 1 year and 4 months in prison. Park’s defense argued, “The special assault was clearly not intentional, and although there was some informal speech, there was no insult. If it were a heinous or rude crime, punishment would be possible, but otherwise, it should not be punished.”

The exterior view of the Seoul Southern District Court building located in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul. [Photo by Seoul Southern District Court]

Subsequently, the deliberation process proceeded with seven jurors excluding the alternate juror. At the same time, the shadow jurors, except one, gathered 11 in total to begin their mock verdict in preparation for a majority decision. As mentioned earlier, the shadow jurors’ mock verdict does not affect the official sentencing. Although they viewed the same evidence, opinions among shadow jurors varied. I argued that “since the brake lights were on in the video and Park turned the handlebar to avoid the collision, conditional intent does not apply,” expressing a not guilty opinion on the special assault charge. Another shadow juror countered, “Since it is foreseeable that a collision can occur when driving with a person ahead, conditional intent can be recognized.”

There was also a debate about the insult charge. Based on the witness’s testimony, I argued for a guilty verdict on insult, stating, “Even if there was no explicit insult, if a third party felt shame from the remarks, it can be considered an insult.” Another shadow juror responded, “The defendant’s and victim’s statements conflict, and there is no clear evidence.” This was because the witness did not clearly testify about the insults the victim claimed to have heard during questioning. As the mock verdict time neared its end, opinions remained divided, and the shadow jurors ultimately decided by majority vote. For special assault, 3 voted guilty, 2 recognized only assault, and 6 voted not guilty, resulting in a majority verdict of not guilty. For insult, 6 voted guilty, concluding with a fine of 1 million won.

The actual sentencing that day was similar to the mock verdict. The court recognized only the insult charge as guilty and sentenced Park to a fine of 1.5 million won. The official jurors also leaned toward the view that conditional intent did not apply to the special assault charge, and the court accepted the jurors’ opinion. The sentencing concluded at 8:45 p.m., 9 hours and 35 minutes after the trial began.

Like the reporter who participated as a shadow juror, the official jurors also said they struggled with the decision. Kim Mo, a woman in her 30s who asked many questions, said, “Although the deliberation ended in unanimous agreement, there were diverse opinions. Especially regarding conditional intent in special assault, there was a lot of subjectivity, so I wasn’t very confident.” Hong Mo (28, female) said, “It was difficult because we had to decide with uncertain evidence. I was also nervous thinking that we were deciding someone’s life.” The jurors unanimously described the trial process as a special experience that allowed them to understand the judicial process.