Supreme Court Confirms Life Sentence for Choi Won-jong in Bundang Stabbing and Murder Case: "No Misinterpretation of Diminished Responsibility"

The perpetrator of the 'Bundang Stabbing Rampage' incident, Choi Won-jong (23), who drove a passenger car onto the sidewalk near Seohyeon Station in Bundang last August, then got out of the car and wielded a weapon, killing 2 people and injuring 12, has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

On the 20th, the Supreme Court's 1st Division (Presiding Justice Noh Kyung-pil) upheld the original sentence of life imprisonment and ordered the attachment of an electronic location tracking device for 30 years for Choi, who was charged with murder, attempted murder, and attempted murder preparation.

Perpetrator Choi Won-jong of the 'Bundang Weapon Rampage' incident. Photo by Yonhap News

The court explained the reason for dismissing Choi's appeal, stating, "There was no error in the original court's judgment in failing to conduct necessary hearings, nor did it violate the limits of free evaluation of evidence by logic and experience, nor did it misinterpret the law regarding insanity or the establishment of attempted murder."

Additionally, the court dismissed the prosecution's appeal, stating, "There was no error in the original court's judgment that the defendant was in a state of diminished mental capacity at the time of the crime, nor did it violate the limits of free evaluation of evidence by logic and experience, nor did it misinterpret the law regarding diminished mental capacity."

Choi was tried on charges of driving his mother's passenger car onto the sidewalk near AK Plaza Bundang in Seongnam-si, Bundang-gu on August 3 last year, hitting 5 people with the vehicle, then getting out and entering the department store to stab 9 people with a weapon, resulting in 14 casualties. Specifically, he was charged with killing 2 people using the vehicle, attempting to kill 3 people using the vehicle but failing, and attempting to kill 9 people using a weapon. He was also charged with preparing to commit murder the day before the crime.

Among the victims, Kim Hye-bin (aged 20 at the time) and Lee Hee-nam (aged 65 at the time), who were hit by the car, eventually died while receiving treatment at the hospital.

Choi claimed insanity, stating he lacked the ability to distinguish objects or make decisions at the time of investigation and in court.

However, the prosecution argued that Choi showed no sincere remorse, citing that he searched for 'diminished mental capacity mitigation' before the crime and asked the prosecutor in charge about parole methods after the crime, and sought the death penalty.

The first trial court sentenced Choi to life imprisonment and ordered the attachment of an electronic location tracking device for 30 years.

The court recognized that Choi was in a state of diminished mental capacity at the time of the crime but did not apply mitigation for diminished capacity. Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act (Persons with Mental Disorders) stipulates that "the act of a person whose capacity is diminished due to mental disorder may be subject to sentence mitigation," making diminished capacity a discretionary, not mandatory, mitigation factor.

The court stated, "This case caused fear among members of our society that public places where crowds gather could become targets of terrorism, and after the incident, posts predicting terrorism were frequently uploaded, with minors also writing or viewing such posts, negatively affecting society as a whole. Considering various evidence, the charges are recognized as guilty, and the risk of reoffending is high."

It added, "It is recognized that there is a very strong need to impose a punishment commensurate with crimes that infringe on the lives of others, thereby declaring the principle that offenders must pay the corresponding price to prevent recurrence of such crimes."

Both Choi and the prosecution appealed, but the second trial court dismissed both appeals.

The court stated, "The bereaved families suffer endless pain due to the defendant's crime, and other victims are experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. However, if the first trial's sentencing does not exceed the reasonable range of discretion, it is appropriate to respect it."

Regarding Choi's claim of insanity, the court said, "With the 2018 amendment to the Criminal Act, diminished mental capacity changed from a mandatory mitigation factor to a discretionary one. Considering that the defendant had no particular problems in daily life and searched the internet for diminished capacity mitigation keywords before the crime, the original court's decision not to consider diminished capacity as a mitigating factor is appropriate."

Regarding the prosecution's claim of sentencing unfairness, which sought the death penalty, the court said, "It is clear that the defendant must pay a price commensurate with the crime committed. However, considering the sentencing of similar cases and fairness, it is difficult to see this case as one where the death penalty is the only acceptable option justified by reasonable circumstances."

It continued, "The original court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment, the heaviest punishment next to the death penalty, to completely isolate him from society and prevent recidivism through deprivation of freedom. This court's carefully considered conclusion is the same as the original court's."

Choi and the prosecution appealed again, but the Supreme Court found no problem with the second trial court's judgment.