Army Commanders Receive Final Prison Sentences for Trainee's Death During Unauthorized Disciplinary Training

Captain sentenced to 5 years and 6 months, First Lieutenant to 3 years
Convicted of fatal child abuse with intent, not involuntary manslaughter
"Violation of constitutional rights is unacceptable" - strict punishment imposed

The commanders who ordered unauthorized disciplinary training at the Army's 12th Division Recruit Training Center, resulting in the death of a trainee, have received final prison sentences.

The company commander (Captain) who completed the detention hearing in the case of the 'Drill Death of a Trainee'. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

On September 25, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Sukyeon) upheld the lower court's sentence of five years and six months in prison for Captain Kang (28), who was indicted on charges of child abuse resulting in death and abuse of authority. First Lieutenant Nam (26), who was indicted on the same charges, withdrew his appeal in July, and his three-year prison sentence from the appellate court was finalized.

The two were brought to trial on charges of ordering six trainees to undergo unauthorized disciplinary training at the 12th Division Recruit Training Center in Inje County, Gangwon Province, on May 23 last year, and then failing to provide proper emergency care to trainee Park, who lost consciousness, resulting in his death.

Prosecutors viewed the case as intentional abuse resulting in death, rather than simple involuntary manslaughter, and indicted them accordingly. Captain Kang was initially sentenced to five years in prison at the first trial, but the appellate court recognized each act against each victim as a separate crime and increased the sentence to five years and six months. Nam received a three-year sentence in both the first and second trials.

The first trial judged the defendants' actions as a "concurrent offense in imagination" (where a single act constitutes multiple crimes), but the appellate court ruled it a "concurrent offense in substance" (where multiple distinct crimes are committed). In the case of a concurrent offense in imagination, although it is essentially multiple crimes, only one sentence is imposed, corresponding to the most severe offense. For a concurrent offense in substance, under the principle of aggravated sentencing in criminal law, the sentence for the most serious offense may be increased by up to half if the offenses are of the same type.

The appellate court stated, "Although soldiers have their basic rights restricted for a certain period due to conscription, they dedicate their youth for the peace and security of the nation," and emphasized, "It is clear that protecting the lives and bodies of soldiers must be the state's highest priority." The court continued, "The defendants caused a fatal accident by perpetuating a backward military culture," adding, "Given that this also undermined public trust in the entire military system, they must be held strictly accountable."

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lower court's ruling did not misinterpret the law or exceed the limits of judicial discretion. The court also rejected the defense's argument that the sentences were excessive, noting that, under the Criminal Procedure Act, appeals on the grounds of excessive sentencing are only permitted when the sentence is death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for ten years or more.