“He denied the crime for a considerable period and obstructed the investigation by resetting his cell phone during the investigation phase, so it cannot be seen that he is seriously reflecting.”
Ms. K, the sister-in-law of former national soccer team member Hwang Ui-jo, who was indicted on charges of leaking illegal footage of the incident, submitted a letter of reflection to the court, but the court ruled as follows. The court, which ruled that she “did not seriously reflect,” sentenced her to three years in prison in March.
The perspective of judges who judge whether or not sexual crime defendants have reflected on their actions is becoming stricter. It was revealed that the number of cases in which a sentence is reduced by one-eighth in three years due to “serious reflection” after submitting a reflection statement and confessing in court has decreased. It is evaluated that judges have become much more cautious in judging the sincerity of reflection as the so-called “fake reflection statements” through ghostwriting companies have increased.
According to data received by the office of Democratic Party of Korea member of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee Seo Young-kyo from the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee on the 21st, there were 187 cases (4.1% of the total) in 2022 in which the defendant’s sentence was reduced in the first trial for sexual assault cases because he was recognized as having “serious reflection.” This is a significant decrease from 1,515 cases (31.6%) in 2020 and 1,265 cases (27.3%) in 2021. “Serious reflection” is a general sentencing factor that judges consider when determining the defendant’s sentence. Judges comprehensively consider special or general sentencing factors and reduce or increase the sentence requested by the prosecutor.
The reason why the number of cases in which ‘serious reflection’ is reflected in the sentencing of sex crime defendants has decreased sharply since 2022 seems to be due to the revision of the sex crime sentencing guidelines in July of that year. At that time, the Sentencing Commission specifically defined the concept of ‘serious reflection’ when revising the sentencing guidelines. It means that it should be strictly limited to ‘cases where it is determined that the defendant truly regrets his or her crime as a result of investigating and judging the specific circumstances in which the crime was admitted, whether there were voluntary efforts to restore the damage or prevent recidivism, etc.’ This was a measure put forth by the Sentencing Commission in response to the problem of sex crime defendants receiving reduced sentences through ‘scheme reflection’, such as submitting a letter of reflection written by a ghostwriter to the trial or suddenly making donations to women’s groups.
A judge in the metropolitan area with extensive criminal trial experience told the Hankyoreh on the same day, “It is difficult to determine whether or not a letter of reflection is genuine based solely on the number of times or content of the letter of reflection. I tend to consider it as a mitigating factor only when there is objective evidence, such as what actions were taken to restore the damage.” A criminal judge at a Seoul district court also said, “Since the direction of the sentencing guidelines revision is to strictly look at the attitude of reflection, (after the revision of the sentencing guidelines) I will be more careful when writing ‘sincere reflection’ in a verdict.”
Rep. Seo Young-kyo said, “The tricks of sexual assault perpetrators should not be a factor in reducing sentences. The court should strictly examine whether the defendants of sexual crimes have reflected on their actions and deal a crushing blow to criminals who buy forgiveness with money.”
