The first trial for A, 38, who is accused of threatening actor Nana, 34, formerly of the girl group After School, and Nana's mother with a weapon and causing injury, will be held on the 20th.
According to legal sources on the 11th, the Criminal Division 1 of the Uijeongbu District Court Namyangju Branch (Presiding Judge Park Ok-hee) plans to hold the first court hearing for A, who has been indicted on charges of aggravated robbery causing injury and violating the anti-stalking law.
A is accused of breaking into Nana's home in Guri, Gyeonggi, around 6 a.m. on Nov. 15 last year with a weapon, demanding money and valuables, and attacking Nana and Nana's mother. At the time, Nana engaged in a physical struggle with A, who was wielding a weapon, to protect her mother, subdued the assailant, and handed the person over to police, reports said. In the process, A is said to have suffered a laceration to the jaw area caused by the weapon.
However, news that A, who is currently held in a detention center, recently filed a countersuit against Nana on attempted murder charges has brought the long-debated question in legal circles of the scope of recognizing "self-defense" back to the surface. Earlier, on Nov. 22 last year, police recognized self-defense in Nana's actions and did not book her.
Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act stipulates, "An act to prevent an imminent and unlawful infringement against one's own or another's legal interests shall not be punished when there is reasonable cause."
The issue is how far to interpret the "reasonable cause" contained in this provision. The prevailing academic view and Supreme Court precedents have interpreted it as "the minimum necessary limit for defense." The idea is that if the force goes beyond stopping the attack and inflicts serious harm on the assailant, it is difficult to recognize it as self-defense.
Attorney Min Cheol-gi of the law firm YulChon, a former presiding judge, said, "Because precedents have recognized self-defense too narrowly, there have been many rulings that considered it at the sentencing stage rather than returning not-guilty verdicts."
In practice, for courts to recognize self-defense, they have required strict conditions such as: ▲ a clear defensive intent ▲ no preemptive provocation ▲ no use of force that exceeds that of the assailant.
A representative case is the so-called "burglar brain death case" that occurred in 2014. A homeowner who beat a burglar who had broken into the house into a brain-dead state claimed self-defense, but the Supreme Court finalized a guilty verdict, saying, "Excessive violence was used when the person had already been subdued."
Such standards have drawn criticism for being far removed from public legal sentiment, given that it is difficult for victims to coolly judge the level of defense in an urgent crime scene.
In contrast, the United States recognizes a broader right to self-defense than Korea through the "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" principles. It does not impose a duty to retreat on victims and allows defense using available means, including firearms. A representative example is a 2023 case in Texas in which a customer who shot and killed a restaurant robber was not indicted.
However, many argue that it is difficult to apply U.S. standards, where firearm possession is legal, directly to Korea. They warn that excessively expanding the right of defense could justify retaliatory crimes or private sanctions.
Even so, a current of change is being sensed within the courts and investigative agencies. Min said, "Ultimately, the Supreme Court needs to present standards that interpret the 'reasonableness' of self-defense more broadly," adding, "Recent precedent trends suggest the possibility of a more forward-leaning judgment."
Prosecutors also revised the "guidelines for handling self-defense cases" in 2023 at the direction of then-Ministry of Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon, to actively consider non-indictment for defensive acts carried out during nighttime crimes or in states of extreme fear or panic.
A criminal defense attorney who formerly served as a prosecutor said, "Given that the act of subduing in this Nana case occurred while being threatened with a weapon, it is highly likely to be recognized as 'reasonable defense.'"