"Only You Eat Good Rice?" Daughter-in-Law Caring for Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law Hit with Dumbbell

Court Recognizes Implied Intent in Murder Case

A father-in-law who attempted to kill his daughter-in-law, who was caring for his sick mother-in-law, was sentenced to prison in the first trial. Yonhap News reported on the 23rd that the Jeonju District Court's 12th Criminal Division (Chief Judge Kim Do-hyung) sentenced A (95) to four years in prison on charges of attempted murder.

The incident occurred at 8 p.m. on August 18. A was charged with repeatedly striking the head of his eldest daughter-in-law B, who was watching television at their home in Jeonju city, with a 3kg dumbbell.

Prison Sentence. Yonhap News

Even after B briefly lost consciousness from the severe impact and regained it, A continued the attack, shouting "Die" and strangling her. B suffered a severe head injury with a cracked skull and was taken to the emergency room, but her life was not in danger.

Police investigations revealed that A had been quarreling over trivial matters with B, who had been staying at the in-law's house to care for the sick mother-in-law, for several days before the incident. During a family meal, A verbally abused B harshly, saying, "You eat good rice, but I was served bad rice."

It was also reported that A told B to "leave the house." When B retorted, "Father-in-law, you should leave," A lost control of his anger and reportedly ingested poison in an attempt at self-harm. However, before the poisoning, A decided, "If I die like this, no one will know why I died. I should kill my daughter-in-law first," and then committed the assault.

During the trial, A admitted to the assault but claimed he had no intention to kill his daughter-in-law. However, the court judged that A had an implied intent to kill, considering the weapon used and the extent of the victim's injuries. The court explained, "The defendant continued the attack even when the victim, hit by the dumbbell he wielded, regained consciousness and tried to escape. In light of these facts, it is difficult to view the defendant's actions as an impulsive injury without intent to kill the victim."