*The news of that day has passed, but its meaning remains today. "Today's That Day" reads the present through records of the past.*
"Even after serving 15 years, he'll still be under 50 — a strong, able-bodied age. I'm so scared. How am I supposed to live my life…"
On March 28, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a 15-year prison sentence for a man who stalked his ex-girlfriend and, after she reported him to police, went to her workplace and attacked her with weapons.
The Third Division of the Supreme Court (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) finalized the 15-year sentence in the appeal of a man in his 30s, identified as A, who had been indicted on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, aggravated intimidation, violations of the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes, and trespassing. The first court's orders requiring completion of an 80-hour stalking treatment program and five years of probation were also upheld.
◇ "I Can't Live Without You" — Stalking Followed by Knife Attack
On March 2, 2023, A went to the workplace of his ex-girlfriend B, struck her on the head with a blunt weapon, and then attempted to kill her by stabbing her with a knife he had brought. B suffered a roughly 7-centimeter laceration on the left side of her head and serious injuries to her liver, lungs, ribs, and diaphragm. A also slashed a colleague of B who tried to intervene, injuring the colleague as well.
Prior to the attack, in February of the same year, A had broken into B's home after their breakup, held a weapon, and said, "I have no reason to live without you," committing repeated acts of stalking. Investigators determined that A harbored a grudge against B for reporting him, and on the very day he finished his police questioning, he went to find B with the intent to kill her.
◇ 15-Year Sentence Finalized — "He Won't Even Be 50 When Released"
In September 2023, the first trial court sentenced A to 15 years in prison and ordered completion of an 80-hour stalking treatment program along with five years of probation. Prosecutors had sought a 20-year sentence, but the court imposed a lower term. The court considered A's premeditated nature of the crime as an aggravating factor in sentencing. However, it rejected prosecutors' request for an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet, citing that his risk of reoffending was not high.
Both the prosecution and A's defense appealed, each claiming the sentence was unjust. A's side argued diminished mental capacity and said "the sentence is too heavy," while prosecutors asked the court to impose the electronic monitoring order. The appellate court rejected both appeals.
The Supreme Court also dismissed A's appeal, ruling that "there is no error of violating the rules of logic and experience beyond the limits of free evaluation of evidence, nor any misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding diminished mental capacity." The court added, "Even considering the circumstances argued in the appeal, it cannot be said that the appellate court's decision to uphold the first trial's 15-year sentence is grossly unjust."
Before the Supreme Court ruling, B said in an interview with JTBC's *Sageon Banjang* (Crime Chief), "At the final sentencing hearing in the second trial, my sister and I sobbed in the courtroom." She added, "Even after serving 15 years, he'll still be under 50 — a strong, able-bodied age. I'm so scared. How am I supposed to live my life. I'm seriously even considering emigrating."
C, who identified herself as B's older sister, posted on an online community, writing, "I'm already terrified that after his release, he'll hold a grudge and commit the same kind of retaliatory crime again." She appealed, "Please pay attention so that something like this never happens again."
