'Ex-Lover Murder' Stalker Sentenced to 25 Years in Prison... Bereaved Family: "A Verdict That Failed to Protect Victim's Daughter"

A stalker who brutally murdered his ex-lover despite a court-issued restraining order was sentenced to 25 years in prison. However, the victim's family expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict and demanded the prosecution to file an appeal.

The Criminal Division 15 of Incheon District Court (Presiding Judge Ryu Hojung) sentenced A (31, male), who was indicted on charges including retaliatory murder under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and violation of the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes, to 25 years in prison at the sentencing hearing held on the 18th. Additionally, A was ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device (electronic anklet) for 10 years after release and to attend 120 hours of stalking crime recidivism prevention lectures.

A was brought to trial on charges of stabbing his ex-lover B (37, female) in the chest and back with a weapon in the hallway of an apartment in Namdong-gu, Incheon, at 5:53 a.m. on July 17. He also swung the weapon multiple times at B’s mother, who came out of the house upon hearing B’s screams and tried to stop the attack, causing severe injuries to both her hands. Furthermore, B’s 6-year-old daughter, who witnessed the crime, is reported to be receiving psychological treatment due to mental trauma.

Despite having previously received court-issued provisional measures in June last year, ordering him not to approach B within 100 meters or contact her via electronic communication due to prior assault and stalking offenses, A committed this crime.

A man in his 30s who stalked and killed his ex-lover
[Image source=Yonhap News]

The court stated, "The victim was suddenly attacked on her way to work and lost her precious life. It is difficult to imagine how great the fear and mental suffering were at the time of the crime," adding, "The victim’s mother sustained injuries to her fingers and wrists while trying to stop the crime and continues to suffer aftereffects, and the victim’s daughter likely experienced immense grief and mental pain from losing her mother."

It continued, "The defendant claims he went to see the victim because he wanted to hear an apology, but he committed the crime again even after hearing the apology before her death," and added, "When asked if he believed the victim was responsible, he gave no answer, raising doubts about whether he is sincerely reflecting on his crime."

Regarding A’s retaliatory murder charge, the court found him guilty, stating, "The stalking reports and provisional measures against the victim appear to have influenced the crime to some extent."

However, the court explained the sentencing rationale, saying, "It cannot be confirmed that the victim’s child witnessed the crime or that the defendant committed the crime in front of the child, so this was not considered an aggravating factor," and "Considering the defendant’s attitude toward accepting punishment and fairness compared to other retaliatory crimes, it was deemed difficult to deprive the defendant of life or impose permanent confinement."

The prosecution sought the death penalty, the maximum sentence under the law, for A at the sentencing hearing on the 15th of last month. Earlier, the prosecution submitted a motion to amend the indictment to add the more severe charge of 'retaliatory murder' to the charges including murder, which the court approved on the same day.

Meanwhile, the victim’s cousin sister expressed her opposition to the verdict after the sentencing hearing, saying, "The defendant might come out into the world again and commit crimes against my niece (the victim’s daughter)," and "I cannot accept a verdict that ultimately failed to protect my niece."

She added, "The defendant, who committed murder in front of the child, performed a theatrical act in court, calling out to my niece and asking for a death sentence to get a reduced sentence, and I am angry that the court seemed to accept this," and said, "I hope the prosecution appeals unconditionally, and we will strive to prove the points we have asserted so far."