A Sri Lankan man who killed a coworker of the same nationality after claiming he was assaulted during an argument was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
The defendant argued that at the time of the crime, he only intended to assault or injure and had no intent to kill, but the court found that there was sufficient evidence of implied intent to kill and that at the time of the crime, even a definite intent to kill could be recognized.
According to the legal community on the 20th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) upheld the original sentence of 12 years imprisonment for A (35), a Sri Lankan national charged with murder.
A worked at the same company as the victim B (29), also a Sri Lankan national, and they lived together in the company dormitory located in Yeongam-gun, Jeollanam-do. The two often quarreled over issues such as dormitory use, politics, and religion. On the evening of December 2 last year, after attending a friend's birthday party together, they quarreled again on the way back to the dormitory. During the quarrel, A was hit on the head by B and returned to the dormitory angry.
After midnight, A went to B's room to protest the assault, but when B hit A again, an enraged A took a weapon from the dormitory kitchen and threatened B. Despite this, B grabbed A's right arm holding the weapon with his left hand and continued hitting A's head with his right hand. Angered, A grabbed the weapon with both hands and stabbed B to death.
At trial, A claimed the act was accidental and that he had no intention to kill.
However, the first trial court found that there was intent to kill and convicted him, sentencing him to 12 years in prison.
The court cited previous Supreme Court precedents on intent to kill, stating, "The intent to kill does not necessarily require a purpose or planned intention to kill; it is sufficient if the person recognizes or foresees the possibility or risk that their actions may cause another person's death. Such recognition or foresight, whether definite or indefinite, is recognized as implied intent."
Furthermore, the court stated, "When the defendant claims that there was no intent to kill at the time of the crime and only intended to assault or injure, whether the defendant had intent to kill at the time must be judged comprehensively based on objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the circumstances leading to the crime, motive, the location and repetition of the attack, and the likelihood of death resulting."
The court judged that the intent to kill was sufficiently recognized by examining the process and depth of the stabbing by A into B.
The court stated, "Considering the way and direction in which the defendant held the knife, it can be evaluated that at least at the moment of the crime, the defendant had a definite intent to kill the victim."
A appealed, but the second trial court's judgment was the same.
The Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial court's judgment.
The court explained the reason for dismissing the appeal, stating, "Considering various sentencing factors shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, character, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, even taking into account the circumstances argued in the appeal, it cannot be said that the first trial court's sentence of 12 years imprisonment for the defendant, which the lower court upheld, was grossly unfair."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
