"Allow Incest"... The Absurd Argument of a Father Who Sexually Abused His Daughter for 10 Years

10 Years of Daughter's Academic Abuse... Attempted Murder Charges
In Trial, "Suppressing Personal Freedom" Claims Beyond Common Sense

A father who sexually assaulted his biological daughter for nearly 10 years was sentenced to a heavy prison term. It was reported that he argued in court that sexual relations between close relatives should be socially accepted.

According to the legal community, Mr. A habitually sexually abused his daughter for about 10 years. When the victim resisted, he threatened to assault her, and committed the crimes at a frequency of once every 2 to 3 weeks or once a month against the terrified victim.

While experiencing financial difficulties due to failed stock investments, he became dissatisfied when the victim refused to have sexual relations and even attempted to take the victim’s life by carbon monoxide poisoning but failed.

Eventually, Mr. A was indicted on charges including rape by a relative under the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Attempted Murder.

However, Mr. A denied most of the charges at trial, claiming that he merely had a close relationship with his daughter without any barriers. He even justified his crimes by arguing that the current law punishing sexual relations with a blood relative is a form of social violence that unjustly suppresses individual free will.

Accordingly, the Criminal Division 1 of the Chuncheon Branch of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Min Ji-hyun) found Mr. A guilty in the first trial and sentenced him to 25 years in prison. This was based on the victim’s detailed and consistent testimony, and Mr. A’s confession during the prosecution investigation. Additionally, Mr. A kept a diary recording the sexual violence committed against the victim, and the recidivism risk assessment indicated a “high” level.

Considering this, the court ordered the attachment of an electronic monitoring device (electronic anklet) for 20 years due to the high risk of reoffending. It also imposed a 10-year employment restriction order related to child and youth institutions and organizations for people with disabilities.

The court criticized Mr. A, stating, “He neglected his responsibility to protect and raise the victim to grow up healthily, treating her as a consumable sexual object to satisfy his twisted sexual desires, molesting and raping her over a long period.”

It added, “He maintains an attitude justifying sexual violence crimes, including claiming that he had consensual sexual relations with the victim and that such relationships should be socially accepted, indicating a low possibility of behavioral improvement.”

Mr. A repeated the same claims in the appeal trial but they were not accepted.

The appellate court stated, “The physical and mental suffering and sense of loss the victim endured are truly unimaginable. Mr. A does not reflect on his crimes, maintaining the claim that sexual relations between close relatives should be socially accepted, and the likelihood of his behavioral improvement appears very low.”