Threats and violence… ‘Family feud’
Invite your estranged wife to your home
Supreme Court sentences 20 years in prison for ‘extremely cruel’
A man who killed his wife in front of his father-in-law during divorce proceedings with a 1-metre long Japanese sword has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The Second Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge, Supreme Court Justice Chun Dae-yeop) announced on the 29th that it had upheld the lower court sentence of 20 years in prison for Mr. A (50), accused of murder and other charges.
In September last year, Mr. A was accused of stabbing and killing his wife, Mr. B, with a long sword in a multi-family house in Gangseo-gu, Seoul. There is also an allegation of using a permitted longsword for training purposes other than permitted use.
Mr B, who was separated from Mr A, stopped at Mr A’s house to collect his belongings with his father, and was changed. Mr A turned on the tape recorder and tried to gather evidence that might be in his favor in the divorce suit, but it turned out that he was enraged when Mr B did not respond as expected.
His father (Mr A’s father-in-law), who went home with Mr B, is known to have not been injured. After the crime, Mr. A turned himself in to the police, but he stopped being investigated by the police and called his father-in-law and said, “Wasn’t the father-in-law biting a little?”
It was investigated that during the marriage Mr A was obsessed with Mr B and had a discord with violence. An acquaintance of Mr B alleged that Mr A attacked Mr B in front of children and threatened him with a long sword several years ago. In fact, it was investigated that Mr A filed a divorce suit and requested an injunction to deny access. The prosecution asked the court to sentence Mr A to life in prison, but the first trial sentenced him to 20 years in prison. The first trial sentenced him to 20 years in prison, saying, “It is a very terrible and shocking case as there are young daughters in middle and high school, and Mr. A’s father and Jang’s father-in-law were watching the crime scene .”
Both Mr A and the prosecution appealed the first trial verdict, but the second trial judgment was the same. Before the sentencing, Mr A reached an agreement with Mr B’s survivors, and the survivors also expressed their intention not to be punished, but the sentence did not change.
The second trial underlined: “The victim must have been in terrible pain in the grip of indescribable fear” and “there is no difference in the possibility of conviction as long as she has to face the terrible appearance of her daughter and attend the trial she has led to his death.”
Mr. A again opposed the sentence, but the Supreme Court also rejected the appeal of Mr. A, believing that the lower court’s ruling was correct.
Victim’s latest ‘what to do with the kids’
The friend of the victim also issued a national petition urging disclosure of Mr A’s identity. A friend headlined “I’m calling to get your clothes and urge you to disclose the identity of the perpetrator who killed my wife who is in the middle of a divorce case” and said, “Murder is a crime. We want the identity of the perpetrator to be revealed.”
She said: “The victim heard the words ‘Take the children’s clothes’ and was changed. I went with my father because I suffered from domestic violence and threats for several years.”
A friend of the deceased victim said: “Mr A used violence in front of the children because the victim did not listen. My friend got scared at the sight of Mr A’s shadow, so he went with his father.” “While my friend was packing, Mr A told his friend to drop the divorce case, and when was rejected, said , “Then die” and went out with a long sword. Mr. A followed his friend who was running away even though his friend’s father stopped him and stabbed him several times.
He continued, “Before my friend died, I asked my father, ‘What should we do with our children?’ and he could no longer speak.” Please help me so the author can pay a fair price,” he repeatedly appealed.
Reporter Yumin Kim