Wife of 50 Years and Mother of 5 Killed with Blunt Object... Supreme Court Confirms 20-Year Sentence

A man in his 70s who killed his wife, with whom he had lived for 50 years and had five children, using a blunt weapon was sentenced to a heavy prison term.

In court, the husband claimed a reduced sentence, arguing that he committed the crime while intoxicated and mentally impaired, but this was not accepted.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) upheld the original sentence of 20 years in prison in the appeal trial of Mr. A (73), who was charged with murder.

The court explained the reason for dismissing Mr. A's appeal, stating, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment that violates the rules of logic and experience, exceeds the limits of free evaluation of evidence, misinterprets facts, or misunderstands the law regarding diminished mental capacity."

Mr. A married his wife, Mrs. B (68 at the time of death), in 1973, and they maintained their marriage for 50 years, raising five children. While Mrs. B saved money from working at a restaurant and purchased an apartment in her name in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Mr. A occasionally worked as a day laborer but had no steady job or significant income.

Feeling inferior as the head of the family for not being able to financially support his family and seeing that the children only interacted with his wife, Mr. A had a history of abusing his wife and breaking household items in front of their young children when intoxicated for decades. His violent behavior worsened over the years due to alcohol addiction.

In October 2020, Mr. A was charged with attempted arson of a dwelling after he threatened to kill his wife by setting fire to underwear in the master bedroom wardrobe with a lighter. He was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 3-year probation in the first trial, and the sentence was finalized.

On February 7, 2023, one day before the incident, Mr. A and Mrs. B admitted their daughter, Ms. C, who lived with them, to a psychiatric hospital due to worsening depression. After sending Ms. C off in an ambulance, Mr. A went out, wandered around a nearby park, drank about five bottles of beer at a pub, and returned home around 10 p.m.

Shortly after midnight on February 8, 2023, at 12:04 a.m., Mr. A went to a convenience store near his home, bought a bottle of soju and some snacks, and returned home. He asked Mrs. B, "Can you lend me about 10 million won by taking out a loan against the house in your name?"

Mrs. B refused Mr. A's request, and the two pushed and shoved each other. Mrs. B fled to the master bedroom, but Mr. A followed her and continued the fight. In a moment of anger, he took a hammer about 43 cm long from the veranda and struck the back of Mrs. B's head about 30 times while she was sitting with her back turned, killing her.

Mr. A, who was tried for murder, claimed, "I was intoxicated and mentally impaired at the time of the crime."

However, the first trial court rejected Mr. A's claim of diminished mental capacity and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

The court acknowledged that Mr. A had been hospitalized for three months in the past for alcohol dependence syndrome and that a medical expert had opined that "Mr. A was at least in a moderate to severe state of alcohol addiction symptoms."

However, the court stated, "It does not appear that the defendant was in a state of diminished capacity to distinguish objects or make decisions at the time of the crime," and "Therefore, the defendant's and his lawyer's claims of diminished mental capacity are not accepted."

The court based this judgment on the following: ▲ Mr. A placed the hammer used as the murder weapon back near the veranda storage after killing Mrs. B, indicating he had the capacity to distinguish objects at the time of the crime; ▲ Mr. A attempted suicide by taking a large amount of sleeping pills immediately after the crime, suggesting he understood the nature and ethical implications of his actions; ▲ He gave relatively clear statements about the main circumstances of the crime and conversations with the victim to investigators; ▲ The medical expert stated, "The defendant was not in a state of impaired consciousness due to drinking at the time of the crime."

The court pointed out, "Killing a spouse with whom one has a marital bond deprives the most dignified and significant legal interest, human life, and fundamentally destroys the legal and moral responsibilities based on the marital relationship, thereby breaking the ethics and affection within the family and leaving the surviving children with immense and irreparable pain and trauma. Therefore, the guilt is very grave."

It added, "The defendant committed the crime in a fit of rage after the victim refused his unreasonable financial demand. There is no ground to consider the motive mitigating, and the method of the crime was extremely cruel and merciless." The court also considered it an unfavorable factor that Mr. A committed murder during the probation period for attempted arson.

Finally, the court stated, "The psychological pain of the victim's children who experienced the extremely tragic situation of their father killing their mother is immeasurable, and one child even witnessed the crime scene," adding, "These children currently want the defendant to be punished."

Mr. A appealed, but the second trial court dismissed the appeal, stating, "The original judgment is entirely proper, and there is no illegality in misinterpreting facts or law."

The court also rejected both Mr. A's and the prosecution's claims that the sentence was excessively harsh or lenient, stating, "The original sentence is neither excessively heavy nor light."

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial court's judgment.