Husband Assaults Wife and Forces Tattoo of His Name Just Two Days After Release [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

At 1 a.m. on July 8, 2023, husband Kim (29) repeatedly punched his wife A (25) on the lips. The reason was that she had an affair while he was incarcerated. He had been serving a 1 year and 6 months prison sentence for gambling operation and special intimidation charges and was released from Gwangju Prison just two days earlier on July 6 of the same year. It was also only 1 year and 3 months since they registered their marriage in April 2022.

After his release, Kim lived with A in an apartment in Buk-gu, Gwangju, and frequently intimidated her by saying, "I won’t stay in prison until the end; I will come out someday. Finding you is nothing, and I will find you to the very end. If I’m going to go to prison for killing one person, I will kill everyone I want to kill before going in."

At 2 a.m. on July 9, 2023, the day after the assault, Kim showed A, who was frightened from the previous day’s beating, the tattoo search results related to the so-called 'Eogeumni Appa' case and said, "If your feelings for me are sincere, engrave it on your body like the Eogeumni Appa tattoo."

The 'Eogeumni Appa' case involved Lee Young-hak, who was known through broadcasts for his devoted care of his daughter suffering from a rare disease called giant cementoma (a disease where a giant tumor grows in the cementum of gums and tooth roots). Lee forced his middle school daughter to bring a friend home, gave the friend sleeping pills, attempted sexual assault, and when the friend woke up and resisted, he murdered and abandoned her. Lee was also known to have tattooed his own name on various parts of his wife’s body.

Kim took A to a tattoo shop on Chungjang-ro in Dong-gu, Gwangju, and forced her to get tattoos in five places: her wrist, leg, back, and pubic bone. On A’s right leg and back, the phrase "I will live as OO’s woman for life" was tattooed, and on her pubic bone, the marriage registration date along with Kim’s name was tattooed.

Three days later, on the evening of July 12, 2023, the assault continued.

Kim, angry while questioning A about the affair, hit her head with his hand and strangled her. When he still couldn’t calm down, Kim said, "Let’s kill someone," and bought soju and beer from a convenience store.

While drinking, if A gave answers he didn’t like, Kim hit her face with his hand and cut her bangs with kitchen scissors and hairdressing scissors.

Kim, knowing that A disliked snakes, said, "You don’t know my pain. Every minute and second is tens of thousands of times more painful than your dislike of snakes," then played snake videos on A’s YouTube app on her phone and forced her to watch.

When going to the bathroom, Kim made A stay in front of the bathroom door and frequently opened the door to prevent her from escaping. Using the opportunity when Kim was on the phone in the bathroom, A escaped from the house at 3:30 a.m. the next day, after being confined for 9 and a half hours. On that day, A suffered injuries including traumatic rupture of the eardrum requiring about 21 days of treatment.

The prosecutor indicted Kim on charges of injury, coercion, and aggravated confinement causing injury.

The first trial court found Kim guilty of all charges and sentenced him to 5 years in prison.

The court criticized, "The defendant confined the victim, his spouse, in their residence, inflicted injuries, and coerced the victim to get large tattoos on multiple parts of her body. The defendant’s culpability is very serious."

It also stated, "The victim likely experienced great fear and pain due to the crimes, the extent of the injuries is not minor, although the defendant reached a settlement with the victim, it is difficult to say the victim’s harm has fully healed, and the victim will require considerable time and cost to remove the tattoos. The defendant committed these crimes just two days after being released from prison where he served a 1 year and 6 months sentence for special intimidation and other charges. The defendant has a history of seven prior punishments for violent crimes, which are unfavorable factors for the defendant."

However, the court took into account as a favorable factor that Kim paid A 13 million won in settlement money and submitted a letter of no prosecution request.

Kim appealed the first trial verdict.

In the appellate trial, he claimed diminished responsibility due to intoxication at the time of the crimes.

The court stated, "According to records, the defendant has been receiving hospital treatment and medication for sleep disorder, bipolar affective disorder, and ADHD since around February 2016 until the time of the crimes. It is acknowledged that the defendant drank about one bottle of soju and one bottle of beer, or about one to two bottles of soju at the time of the crimes."

However, the court ruled, "Although the defendant may have been somewhat vulnerable to impulse control at the time, it cannot be said that the condition was so severe as to be equivalent to a person with a mental illness in the original sense. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant committed the crimes in a state of significantly impaired capacity to discern or decide."

The court cited as reasons: ▲Immediately after the third crime (aggravated confinement causing injury), the defendant called 112 to surrender and explained his residence and the situation at the time ▲During investigation, the defendant explained the motive was learning about the victim’s affair and recalled the situation in detail ▲According to the defendant’s own statement, his usual drinking capacity is about 4 to 5 bottles of soju, so he did not exceed his usual capacity at the time of the crimes.

The Supreme Court holds that personality defects such as impulse control disorder are generally not grounds for sentence reduction as mental disability, except in cases where the severity is so high that it is equivalent to a person with a mental illness in the original sense.

The appellate court rejected both Kim’s and the prosecution’s claims of inappropriate sentencing and upheld the first trial’s 5-year prison sentence.

The court stated, "The original sentence appears to have been decided after thoroughly reviewing important factors, and there is no change in sentencing conditions warranting modification."

During the second trial, Kim and A finalized their consensual divorce, and Kim pledged never to contact A again. However, considering Kim’s past violent criminal record and risk of recidivism, the court found that these circumstances alone do not constitute a significant change in sentencing conditions.

Kim filed another appeal, but the Supreme Court’s ruling was the same.

The Supreme Court’s First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) dismissed Kim’s appeal, stating, "There is no error in the lower court’s judgment by failing to conduct necessary hearings, violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misapplying the law regarding mental disability."

Kim also argued in his appeal that the lower court’s sentencing violated the principles of proportionality and responsibility.

However, the court rejected this, stating, "Such claims constitute grounds for appeal on inappropriate sentencing. According to Article 383, Clause 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, appeals on inappropriate sentencing are only allowed in cases where the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of 10 years or more is imposed. Since the defendant was sentenced to a lighter punishment in this case, claims that the sentence is too heavy cannot be accepted as valid grounds for appeal."