Employee Assaulted While Detained, Dies from 'Organ Rupture'... Restaurant Owner Sentenced to 15 Years

Court: "Victim Treated as a Labor Tool"

A man in his 30s who confined an acquaintance he employed as a worker at home and assaulted him to the point of organ rupture, causing his death, was sentenced to a heavy prison term.

On the 26th, the Criminal Division 14 of the Incheon District Court (Chief Judge Son Seung-beom) changed the charges against Mr. A (32), who was indicted for murder and other charges, to injury resulting in death and sentenced him to 15 years in prison. Mr. A was tried on charges of repeatedly beating his acquaintance Mr. B (27) from October last year to May this year, causing his death. They lived together in an officetel in Incheon, and it was found that Mr. A frequently hit Mr. B’s entire body with a clothes hanger rod or his fists.

According to the investigation, Mr. A met Mr. B while working as a public service worker (now social service agent) in the past, then employed him as a worker at the restaurant he operated and lived together while committing the crime. Mr. B was beaten to the point of a nosebleed in the restaurant kitchen about two weeks before his death and escaped to another nearby restaurant, where he called 112 (emergency number).

When the police arrived after the report, Mr. A found Mr. B and confined him in his vehicle. He also lied to the police officers, saying "He ran away in another direction." After this incident, Mr. B was confined at home for two weeks and repeatedly assaulted, resulting in broken ribs and ruptured organs, ultimately leading to his death. The prosecution judged that Mr. A continuously assaulted and killed Mr. B, whom he was gaslighting (psychological domination), but the court did not recognize the intent to murder.

The court stated, "The defendant exploited the victim to operate the restaurant while being in financial difficulty and did not pay proper wages," adding, "It was more advantageous for him to keep the victim alive and continue to receive labor rather than kill him." The court also noted, "The tools used by the defendant to assault the victim were not lethal weapons," and "It cannot be hastily judged that he repeatedly attacked with the intent to kill."

However, the court explained the sentencing by saying, "The defendant effectively controlled the victim, treating him as a tool to provide labor and as an object of violence," and "Considering the bereaved family’s petition for severe punishment and the very poor nature of the crime."