A man in his 40s who beat his teenage daughter to death with a blunt weapon after an argument has had a 22-year prison sentence finalized.
The Supreme Court's Third Division, with Justice Eom Sang-pil as the presiding judge, upheld the lower court ruling sentencing the man, identified only as A, to 22 years in prison on charges of child abuse resulting in death, legal sources said on the 15th. A seven-year ban on employment at child-related institutions was also maintained.
A was indicted and detained on charges of beating his daughter, identified as B, across her body with a blunt weapon at their home in Ansan, Gyeonggi Province, on Oct. 19 last year. A had lived apart from B for 10 years before they began living together three years ago. The two argued after B tried to hold her 3-year-old sibling despite her parents' objections, among other reasons. Investigators found that A flew into a rage and committed the crime after B told his spouse words to the effect of, "Why have two children when you can't even raise one? Am I really your daughter?" and reached toward the younger child's neck in a threatening manner.
The trial court sentenced A to 18 years in prison, taking into account that he was a first-time offender, that he turned himself in immediately after the crime, and that the crime was somewhat impulsive.
The appellate court raised the sentence to 22 years. "The child victim had her life taken at the young age of 14, in the home where she should have been safest, by the guardian who was supposed to raise her," the court said. "Even though the child covered her head with her own hands in minimal self-defense, the method of the crime — striking the back of her head more than 25 times until the handle of the iron hammer broke — was extremely cruel."
"Even if there was a need for discipline, the problem should have been resolved through appropriate means such as conversation and persuasion, so it cannot serve as grounds for mitigation," the appellate court said. "Because it came only after the victim had already died and an irreversible outcome had occurred, it is difficult to take into account in sentencing."
The Supreme Court left the lower court's judgment intact. "Examining the various sentencing factors in the record, including the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, his relationship with the victim, the motive, means and consequences of the crime, and the circumstances following the crime, it cannot be said that the lower court's sentence of 22 years in prison was grossly unjust, even taking into consideration the circumstances asserted in the grounds for appeal," the court ruled.