The gap between a court ruling and common sense

“There is a case that I`ve felt ashamed of in my nearly 30-year career as a judge. It can be considered "Memories of Murder (a movie)" for me, which I have experienced through records.” Kim Ji-hyeong, a former Supreme Court justice who retired last year, opened a lecture at the law school of Korea University in Seoul with these comments Oct. 22. He served as a judge in a lower court trial on the murder of an old lady that occurred in a rural village more than 10 years ago. The defendant had admitted to committing the crime from the investigative phase to the early days of his trial, then suddenly denied guilt. Police submitted the suspect`s recorded testimony. Since he spoke in a natural fashion at the testimony, there was no hint of external pressure on him. Kim gave the defendant a prison sentence of 15 years in the first trial.

The suspect, however, was found not guilty by an appellate court, and the Supreme Court later upheld the ruling. The reasons cited were lack of critical evidence and the inability of taped records to determine if his confession was voluntary. Kim said, "I learned a painful lesson.” That is, he was a bit negligent about a principle of a criminal trial that suggests that however a violent criminal one is, he or she cannot be found guilty if the suspect`s own confession is the only evidence. “I personally still believe that the suspect was the perpetrator, but I shouldn`t have applied a standard I applied to that case if I cannot apply it to other general cases,” Kim added. If it becomes common practice to issue a guilty verdict based solely on a suspect’s confession, innocent people could be convicted en masse.

The law in modern societies follows the principle of “general justice,” which can be applied universally, rather than “individual justice,” which is applicable merely to a specific case. The state-appointed attorney is a system to that effect. If only a specific case is considered, people might as well think why violent criminals should be protected with taxpayers’ money. But when general cases are broadly considered, state-appointed attorneys implement justice by defending people who are mistakenly charged because they cannot afford lawyers. Seo Jin-hwan, who was indicted for killing a housewife in Seoul, expressed anger to his attorney Thursday, saying, “Why has the court repeatedly delayed its ruling?” when a hearing ended without a verdict. The court, however, allowed Seo to undergo a three-phase trial nonetheless.

Convicted murderer Oh Won-chun, who killed a woman in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province, was given the death penalty by a lower court but his sentence was changed to life in prison by an appellate court. The key message in the ruling is that he "accidently" committed the crime after living a life of impoverishment and desolation. The ruling was a decision that conveys fears that the death penalty could be abused if given for such a heinous crime. The individuality of the case, in which Oh cut his victim’s body into 358 pieces, was deemed less important. This is the point where legal sentiment and logic collide. Many people ask why did a court allow such a beast to live, but judges consider equity vis-a-vis other murderers who were given life sentences. Likewise, narrowing the gap between common sense and the law is a major challenge.

City Desk Reporter Shin Gwang-yeong (neo@donga.com)