A case in which an uncle who had been sexually harassing his niece was beaten up by her and her boyfriend, with the niece brandishing a weapon, has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a 'justifiable act' - one that did not break the law. The incident occurred in 2017. The victim, Ms A, who was in her 20s at the time, had been sexually harassed by her uncle, Mr B, on multiple occasions over several years. On July 2, 2017, Ms A and her boyfriend, Mr C, confronted Mr B at his home in Seoul. During the argument, Mr B made a threatening remark, saying, “You will be the one who ends up dead.” In response, Mr C physically assaulted Mr B, and Ms A brought out a weapon - a 19cm kitchen knife - from her bag and threatened him. As a result, Mr B suffered a fractured nose and required 14 weeks of medical treatment. The two were indicted for assault and battery and for carrying a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the actions of Ms A and Mr C constituted a 'justifiable act' under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which provides that an act that is conducted in accordance with social norms and is deemed reasonable under the circumstances is not a crime. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is necessary to consider the context and circumstances of the case when determining whether an act is justifiable. The court also noted that the lower courts had failed to fully consider the background and circumstances of the case, and that they had made an error in their interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court's decision was made on Thursday.
In a recent legal decision, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned its earlier ruling regarding a case involving incestuous assault, a husband's violent response, and a son's threats with a weapon. The court's main panel had previously convicted a 39-year-old man (identified as ㄱ) of special coercion and sentenced his 76-year-old father (identified as ㄴ) to one year in prison and his 39-year-old son (identified as ㄱ) to a suspended one-year prison term for assault.
The case began when ㄱ, at the age of 9 or 10, claimed in a text message that his father had sexually assaulted him, leading to a series of violent confrontations.
Initially, the lower court sentenced ㄱ for special coercion and ㄴ for assault. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the case was reopened on June 25th. The Supreme Court ruled that ㄱ's actions constituted "justified action" and could not be punished. The court stated that ㄱ's behavior, in defense of himself and his father, was justified by the gravity of the situation, the nature of the threat, and the urgency of protecting his life.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that ㄴ's violent behavior, their history together, and the gender dynamics played a significant role in ㄱ's actions. The court concluded that ㄴ's actions were the primary responsibility in this case, and ㄱ's response was comparatively minor in severity and the level of harm caused.
Written by urgent.news from Hankyoreh's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
