A man in his 40s who, 19 days after being released from prison for a special robbery case, went to an acquaintance who had urged someone to report him and assaulted the person in retaliation was sentenced on appeal to two years and six months in prison.
According to legal sources, on the 3rd the Criminal Division 3 of the Suwon High Court (Presiding Judge Cho Hyo-jung) overturned the lower court's sentence of three years in prison for A, who was indicted on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (retaliatory assault, retaliatory intimidation, etc.) and special assault, and sentenced A to two years and six months in prison.
A was brought to trial on charges of assaulting acquaintance B dozens of times with fists at a nightlife bar in Hwaseong, Gyeonggi, on May 13 last year and striking B's head with a soju bottle. A also faces a charge of threatening B as if to stab B's neck while holding a broken soju bottle.
The investigation found that A committed the crime out of resentment because, in connection with a past special robbery committed by A, B had urged the victim to report it to the police. A was sentenced to three years in prison for special robbery and, after serving the term, was released on Apr. 24 last year; A committed the crime 19 days after release.
At the time, B refused A's request to help reach a settlement with the victim and urged a police report, it was found. During the crime, A was reported to have said words to the effect of "Why did you report me?" and "Why did you betray me?"
In the first trial, the court sentenced A to three years in prison, citing the seriousness of a crime committed for retaliation and that it was committed during a repeat-offender period. In particular, it found that retaliatory crimes are grave offenses that hinder the pursuit of substantive truth not only for victims but also for investigative and judicial authorities.
The appellate panel viewed the gravity of the crime and the fact that it was committed during a repeat-offender period as unfavorable factors. However, it explained that it reduced the sentence by six months in consideration of factors such as A admitting the crime and reflecting during the appeal and A's efforts toward redress, including depositing a certain amount for the victim even though the victim did not accept it.