A man in his 50s has been fined after assaulting his wife during a heated argument over their divorce and threatening her with a weapon. The fine was upheld after both the initial trial and an appeal.
On Tuesday, under Judge Kim Sang Gon, the 1st Criminal Division of the Jeonju District Court in South Korea announced that it had dismissed the defendant’s appeal and maintained the fine of 5 million won (roughly $3,470). The man faced charges of aggravated threats and malicious property damage.
The incident occurred around 4 a.m. on December 31, 2022, at an apartment in Jeonju, located in North Jeolla Province. Investigations revealed that the man became enraged during an argument with his wife over their divorce, which led to him becoming violent.
During the altercation, the man reportedly threatened his wife, saying, “I can kill you. If I cut your Achilles tendon, you’ll be disabled for life.” He then proceeded to repeatedly smash her mobile phone with the weapon, stomp on it, and throw it out the window, causing significant damage.
According to court documents, police were called to the scene after the couple’s children grew concerned about their mother’s safety and couldn’t get in touch with her. However, officers did not find the weapon the man had allegedly used.
The couple, who had been married since 1985, finalized their divorce about two months after the incident, ending their 40-year marriage.
During the trial, the defendant denied using a weapon, claiming, “I never used a weapon. My wife lied to create a favorable situation for her divorce proceedings.”
The court rejected his defense, stating, “While the defendant’s claims might suggest a motive for the victim to fabricate her testimony, we find her statements credible based on her demeanor and the consistency of her account in court.” Initially, the court imposed a fine of 7 million won (about $4,840).
The man appealed, arguing that the facts had been misunderstood and that the sentence was too severe. However, the appellate court upheld the original verdict.
The appellate judges explained, “Considering the victim’s detailed and consistent testimony, which would be difficult to fabricate without direct experience, we recognize that the defendant threatened her with a dangerous object and caused significant property damage. After reviewing all the circumstances, including the defendant’s actions and the factors presented during the trial, we find the original sentence appropriate and not excessively harsh.” As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
