Fell While Dodging a Snowball Fight in Parking Lot... Friend Left Quadriplegic, Defendant Gets Suspended Sentence

Assault Causing Bodily Injury in Appellate Court vs
Bodily Injury by Negligence in First Instance
Both Sides Appeal... Defendant "Was a Minor at the Time"

Court image. The Asia Business Daily database

A student who threw snow at a classmate at a private academy, causing the classmate to fall from a railing and become paralyzed in the lower body, has received a suspended prison sentence.

According to the legal community on February 16, the Criminal Division 11-2 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Jung Moonkyung, Park Youngjoo, and Park Jaewoo) recently overturned the first-instance ruling that had fined defendant A 5 million won on a charge of inflicting bodily injury by assault, and instead sentenced A to 10 months in prison, suspended for 2 years.

A, around midnight in February 2024 after classes ended at the academy, formed a ball out of snow piled on the ground in the ground-level parking lot connected to the academy and threw it at fellow student B. B, while opening an umbrella to block the snow and stepping backward, caught a leg on the parking lot railing and fell about 3 meters below. As a result, B suffered a severe physical disability, becoming unable to move both legs independently and experiencing partial paralysis in both arms.

Prosecutors indicted A on the view that A assaulted B and caused serious bodily injury. The court of first instance found A guilty not of inflicting bodily injury by assault, but of the lesser offense of bodily injury by negligence, reasoning that A had only intended to play a prank between friends and had no intent to commit assault.

However, the appellate court held that "A's act of throwing a ball of snow at B and making B step backward constitutes the exercise of unlawful physical force and therefore amounts to assault, and there was intent with respect to this." It thus recognized the crime of inflicting bodily injury by assault.

The court stated, "B merely stepped backward to avoid being hit by snow when A moved, and did not show any words or conduct such as responding to A's act by trying to throw snow together," and went on, "Even if A subjectively acted with the intention of playing a prank, it can be seen that A at least had a conditional awareness and intent that physical force would be exercised against the victim against the victim's will."

The court also found that the causal relationship between A's assault and the injury suffered by B was established. However, it pointed out that although A could have foreseen that throwing snow might cause B to slip or fall on the ground and be injured, it is difficult to view that A also foresaw that B's leg would catch on the railing and that B would fall.

Accordingly, the court held that it is difficult to impose liability, as stated in the indictment, for the crime of inflicting bodily injury by assault resulting in serious bodily injury, beyond the crime of inflicting bodily injury by assault that led to injury. Explaining the reasons for sentencing, the court criticized A, saying, "The degree of B's injury is extremely serious, and there is a possibility that B will live with a disability in the future, so A's conduct carries heavy culpability," and "B and B's family appear to be suffering very great pain to this day, and A has not been forgiven."

The court then added, "However, on the other hand, A was a minor at the time of the offense, the physical force exercised cannot be regarded as strong, and it is also difficult to see that A foresaw the victim's serious bodily injury," and stated, "It appears that A will live with a sense of guilt for having caused irreparable harm to B."

Both the prosecution and A have appealed the second-instance ruling to the Supreme Court.