Seok-Jun Lee. Reporter Park Jong-min
Stalking is known as a brutal crime as it causes the victim constant fear and anxiety and causes fatal damage. It is a crime that slowly erodes the lives of the victims and ultimately leads to ruin. However, until March 2021, Korea has only classified stalking crimes as misdemeanors.
After the recent murder at Sindang Station in Seoul, public anger has risen, and the prosecution and the police have come forward to stamp out the crime, but in fact, the crime of stalking has continued from our scope. Indeed, on 23 September, there was a second trial of Kim Byung-chan, who killed the victim while stalking him, and on the 29th, there was a trial of Lee Seok-jun, who murdered the mother of the stalking victim.
Today’s ‘Court Break B’ will tell you about the whereabouts of Lee Seok-jun, who was sentenced to life in prison for brutally killing the victim’s mother while stalking the victim, but appealed against this, and poured fraud into the courtroom which is difficult even for the judge to understand.
Lee Seok-jun, who did not appear at trial, the reason was “mentally difficult”… judge angry
Provide a smart image
In December last year, Lee Seok-jun broke into the house of Mr. A, his ex-boyfriend and the victim of a stalking crime. A was not at home. Then, Seok-Jun Lee swings a knife at Mr. A, was at home, and killed him. He also swings a weapon at Mr A’s younger brother, who was with him at the scene, and puts him in a serious condition. My younger brother was 13 years old.
On June 21, the 12th Criminal Settlement Division of the Seoul Eastern District Court, the judge of the first trial, sentenced Lee Seok-joon to life imprisonment for revenge murder.
Seok-Jun Lee is instantly appealing. And on September 22, the first hearing of the appeal trial will be held at Seoul High Court Criminal Division 9 (Chief Judge Moon Kwang-seop).
However, on the first day of the appeal hearing, Seok-Jun Lee did not appear. Seok-Jun Lee suddenly presents a reason for his lack of appearance this morning.
| 22.09.22 Seoul High Court Criminal Division 9 Lee Seok-joon Revenge Murder Appeals Trial |
| judge “Are you in a bad mood?”
Attorney Lee Seok-meh “It is not like that, but it seems that the verdict of the first trial was unfair and he has various regrets and mental problems.” judge “No, I mean, is it possible that I cannot come because I have a pathological illness, or is it a state of personal psychological anxiety… It is natural that I feel bad when I go to trial. |
The reason for Lee Seok-jun’s absence from the first case was his dissatisfaction with the verdict and mental problems. The judge did not hide his discomfort.
| 22.09.22 Seoul High Court Criminal Division 9 Lee Seok-joon Revenge Murder Appeals Trial |
| judge “I will ask you to explain if there is a justifiable reason for your non-appearance. If you do not appear next time without explanation, that is fine… In any case, I will proceed even if it is procedurally disadvantageous to the accused.” (See detention center staff) Next time in the detention center, if you see your everyday life, won’t you have an opinion?”
correctional center staff “Yes, there is” |
“Killing 母 is not revenge.” Judge: “Common sense?”
Reporter Park Jong-min
The atmosphere of the court immediately froze in Lee Seok-jun’s absence and the judge’s decision.
However, as Lee Seok-jun’s team seriously explained the reason for the appeal, the atmosphere of the trial freezes even more. The reason for Lee Seok-jun’s appeal, which claims that the first trial was unfair, is that he should not apply the charge of vengeful murder to himself. He planned the crime to take revenge against Mr A, but in fact he harmed Mr A’s mother, not the victim, so the rationale is that revenge killing should not be used.
| 22.09.22 Seoul High Court Criminal Division 9 Lee Seok-joon Revenge Murder Appeals Trial |
| judge “I recognized the purpose of revenge against the daughter (Mr. A), but not the mother? It is revenge against the daughter, and killing the mother, not the mother? Are you saying there is a purpose?” Attorney Lee Seok-meh “yes” judge “Think. The purpose of revenge is your daughter, but what you really killed is your family? Lawyer, would it be a crime if I had a bad feeling towards you and harmed my self-control? Wouldn’t it?” Attorney Lee Seok-meh “Let’s review” |
The court, which did not hide its stupidity, pointed out to the defense counsel:
| 22.09.22 Seoul High Court Criminal Division 9 Lee Seok-joon Revenge Murder Appeals Trial |
| judge”Lawyer, for example, you killed B in revenge against A. Whether A and B are male and female cannot be established, but how sad would it be for that person to be harmed when it is a family relation can it be almost identical? Then it will be revenge.”
“Is it logical to subdivide purpose and behavior and claim that this and that separately are unrelated? Do it with common sense. Common sense” “I didn’t come to a conclusion either, but if this is common sense… If the lawyer agrees with common sense, why is it right, and if it doesn’t seem right, reconsider” |
The first trial of the appeal was delayed due to Lee Seok-jun’s absence, and ended in about 30 minutes.
Lee Seok-jun, who appeared after a week … Revengeful murder still denied
A week later, on the 29th, Lee Seok-jun appeared at the first hearing of the appeal court again. The judge will check Lee Seok-jun’s health first. To the question “Do you feel okay?”, Seok-Jun Lee replied, “Not yet.”
In the case that immediately resumed, Lee Seok-jun’s side denies the charge of vengeful murder, just like last time.
| 22.09.29 Seoul High Court Criminal Division 9 Lee Seok-joon Revenge Murder Appeals Trial |
| judge “You admit the purpose of revenge against your daughter, but not against your mother?”
Attorney Lee Seok-meh “Yes. Under the Special Act, the target is extended to family and friends…” judge “But in this case, if the mother did not intervene in this case, it becomes a claim. In this case, my mother intervened and was reported and investigated, so how do I separate my mother? Can you say clearly if it wasn’t there?” Attorney Lee Seok-meh “As you pointed out last time, I am of the position that the purpose should be strictly distinguished.” judge “Prosecutor, do you have any other cases or opinions as to whether killing a family member for the purpose of revenge against A in a revenge killing is a crime or not?” proof “Normally, if you were trying to kill A, but in reality it turns out to be B, the intention is recognized as it is. Also, in this case, this is the person who reported the mother. The purpose of revenge against A Even if the person who killed on the spot was the mother, the purpose of revenge is recognised.” |
According to the current Act on Aggravated Punishment of Certain Crimes, the Republic of Korea stipulates that ‘a person who murders or kills an existing person in revenge shall be punished by death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for at least 10 years. ‘. However, Lee Seok-jun’s side said that the target of revenge was only Mr.
In this appeal trial, Lee Seok-jun is also acquitted of the charge of violating the Personal Information Protection Act. In preparation for this crime, Lee Seok-jun found the address of the victim’s home through the so-called ‘heungshinso’, but he did not know that it was illegal information. Lee Seok-jun’s team also made this claim in the first case.
| 22.09.29 Seoul High Court Criminal Division 9 Lee Seok-joon Revenge Murder Appeals Trial |
| judge “Consequently, do you admit that it is in breach of the Personal Information Protection Act?”
Attorney Lee Seok-meh “no” judge “Are you debating whether or not you obtained (home address information) knowing that you did not obtain the consent of the data subject (victim)?” Attorney Lee Seok-meh “I didn’t know that part.” judge “Are you saying you were not aware of how (home address information) came to me? Attorney Lee Seok-meh “Yes. I mean, there was no awareness.” Attorney Lee Seok-meh “It’s not about the penalty rules.” |
The court, which has confirmed the views of both sides, is due to start investigating evidence from the 20th of this month. It is expected that both sides will continue to fight over whether the charge of vengeful murder can be applied in the subsequent case.
As stalking crimes have recently emerged as a social problem, many cases of stalking crimes are proceeding in the courts. In the stalking crime trial that the reporter watched, what the victims wanted together was the permanent isolation between the stalker and society.
One of the hallmarks of stalking crimes is persistent harassment and assault. The crime continues despite the victim’s intention not to want to ignore it. Also, as they are usually victims of crimes by acquaintances, they hesitate to report it for fear of reprisal. That is why victims’ families demand further isolation from stalking criminals and society. This is because they fear retaliation against them after being released from prison.
South Korea will only abolish misdemeanor stalking until March 2021. Compared to other countries, it was more than 10 years behind the measures. It may be the result of complacency with the perception that ‘there is no tree that cannot be crossed after being shot ten times’ for wrong and wrong obsessions and obvious criminal acts. In the meantime, many victims have occurred, and society is now responding to the appeal.
