“What do remorse, acknowledgment, and a disadvantaged family background, which have nothing to do with the crime, have to do with the trial? Why does the judge decide to forgive when the victim does not? The judiciary shouldn’t do that.”
At the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s national audit on October 20 last year, the room became solemn following the rebuke from a witness behind a screen. The witness, Kim Jin-ju (pseudonym), a 28-year-old freelance designer, is a victim of the so-called “Busan roundhouse kick incident.” In May 2022, early in the morning, on her way home, she was indiscriminately assaulted by a man in his 30s whom she had never met before and was found unconscious with her pants zipper undone. Although the prosecution demanded a 20-year prison sentence for the assailant on charges of attempted murder at the first trial, the court sentenced him to 12 years in prison, citing the assailant’s remorse and others. After Kim persistently requested a re-investigation, the prosecution changed the indictment to include charges such as rape and attempted murder at the second trial, resulting in a 20-year prison sentence, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in September last year.
The Chosunilbo met Kim in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, on March 6. She recently published her 16-month battle in a book titled “I’ll Fight, Because I’m not Dead” (literal translation). With a petite stature not even reaching 160 cm, she handed over a single blue pom-pom chrysanthemum with a bright smile and in a lively Busan accent, saying, “It’s to commemorate our meeting.”
◇ I, the victim, was regarded as an “obstruction” by the judiciary
You fought back against a terrible ordeal. Why did you decide to fight?
“I felt like the judiciary treated me as an ‘obstruction.’ Whenever I sought information, court staff uniformly told me, ‘The victim is not a party to the trial’ because the prosecutor is the plaintiff in criminal cases. The police wouldn’t even disclose the assailant’s name, citing privacy concerns, so I had to attend the trial to find it out. The judge denied my requests to view and copy court records, though I was barely allowed to see the indictment. To access trial records, the court told me to file a civil lawsuit against the assailant to request document delivery, which exposed my personal information to him. Inmates who shared a cell with the assailant informed me upon their release that he had memorized my address, word for word, and threatened to kill me. During the first trial, I requested the CCTV footage and other trial records, but I could only receive them after the first trial had concluded. I believe the court found me bothersome and hoped to avoid any complications.”
You obtained some trial records by becoming close with the assailant’s ex-girlfriend.
“Thanks to the right of defense, a defendant can access most of the trial records. The assailant’s ex-girlfriend had become a co-defendant for hiding him, so she had the status of a defendant. I reached out to her through social media, and her first words were, ‘I’m sorry.’ She said she had hidden him, believing his story that it was just a fight among men. With her help, I could see some of the trial records. The assailant had a court-appointed attorney, but I did not. Victims of sexual crimes can appoint a public defender, but in the first trial, the sexual crime charges against the assailant were not recognized. I had to hire a lawyer and pay the attorney’s fees through a 24-month installment plan on my credit card.”
◇ Publicized the case by writing “I Die in 12 Years”
You publicized the case with an online post titled “I Die in 12 Years.”
“The sentence the assailant received in the first trial was 12 years, eight years less than the 20 years the prosecution had sought, supposedly because he admitted to and showed remorse for his crime. I felt betrayed by the judicial system. It seemed like if I had died, the sentence would have been higher. Many victims of crimes despair over the lenient sentencing guidelines, saying ‘the judge has killed the living victim.’ When I received the trial documents related to the assailant, all 1,268 pages of them were full of lies. “It was odd that the assailant was so calm in court, but he turned out to be an 18-time offender who had received every possible benefit from the judicial system: juvenile protection measures, expressions of remorse, acknowledgment, settlements, etc. He was a ‘monster’ created by the judicial system. He was so accustomed to the ‘sentence outlet’ that offers ‘discount’ for remorse, acknowledgment, diminished capacity, and being a first-time offender. I thought, ‘This is what happens when a criminal learns the system.’ That’s why I decided to stand up. His reduced sentence could lead to more victims.”
You demanded an investigation into the attacker’s potential sexual offenses to prosecutors and courts.
“I wanted to know why he attempted to take my life. While this holds true for all cases, motive is particularly important in attempted murder cases. A seven-minute gap was identified after reviewing CCTV footage from the day of the crime. There were indications of a sexual offense, including the removal of underwear. I experienced memory loss of that moment due to shock. I firmly insisted on adding the sexual assault charge before the second trial. The prosecutor also requested re-appraisal of the DNA found on my pants, but the court rejected additional evaluation for charges that lacked indictment at the court of appeals.”
In the book, you mentioned a drastic shift in the court’s attitude following the media exposure.
“The second trial took place after my case was covered on a TV program. The judge suddenly approved the re-evaluation of DNA, explaining that they had read the victim’s plea. This was disheartening. Is the judiciary genuinely independent? If the judicial branch fulfills its responsibilities as expected, why would a victim invest time seeking media exposure?”
You wrote a post on e-People criticizing the court.
“Following a report that “Sillim rape-murder” suspect Choi Yoon-jong was influenced by the “Busan roundhouse kick,” I was deeply devastated that my presentation of the CCTV footage might have had an impact. Fortunately, the bereaved family of the Sillim rape-murder victim comforted me, saying I shouldn’t think such a way. Subsequently, news emerged that the court handling another case involving the Busan murder suspect Jung Yoo-jung appealed to the media to refrain from reporting provocative news, citing criminal cases motivated by Busan roundhouse Kick case. Notably, that same court had presided over my initial trial. I asked the media for help because the first trial court failed to provide me with the trial record. But now, a judge is telling me that I am at fault. So I authored a post stating that “copycat crime takes place due to judge’s lenient sentencing guidelines, not the video.”
◇ Fighting with the eyes of the world, not the attacker
You modified the indictment, providing evidence of being a victim of sexual offense. This must have been challenging, especially for women.
“Part of me hoped that this would not turn out to be a sexual offense case until the end of the first trial. The revelation that DNA was discovered on the pants I wore that day left me with mixed emotions of joy and sadness because I thought, ‘I have told the world myself that I am a victim of sexual crime.’ The pants had holes when I saw them again in court. Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok had ordered a comprehensive, detailed appraisal of all 121 holes to the DNA identification department of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office. When the DNA of the assailant was identified on the interior of the pants, Kim Tae-hoon, the prosecutor in charge, conveyed the inspection result and sincerely apologized. This was the second apology I received, following one from an ex-girlfriend of the attacker. My battle was not against the assailant. Instead, I fought with the eyes of the public, the media, the police, the court, and ultimately within myself. I was lonely and tired.”
It was remarkable when you described yourself as “the brightest and most colorful person in the court” while recalling your attendance at the trial of the perpetrator.
“Initially feeling intimidated, I wore hats and looked scruffy at my first court visit. Looking back, I hated that look on me. I thought, ‘I should be the coolest victim.’ The rebellious spirit inside me wished to demonstrate to the court that victims like me exist. From the second trial onward, I dressed up as glamorous and cool as possible. I wore heavy makeup and a dress. One time, I wore an eye-catching wig. I also wanted the assailant, in his prison uniform, to realize he had no fashion choices. When he later commented, “That bastard wore a dress to court,” I thought ‘my plan worked.’ I wanted to let him know that he is in a prison, not a castle.”
◇ I’m glad that I’m alive... so I can help other victims
You mentioned the phone call conversation with Han Dong-hoon, former Minister of Justice in the book.
“Last year, after the Supreme Court confirmed the outcome of the second trial, Democratic Party lawmaker Park Yong-jin and Transition Korea (now People Power Party) lawmaker Cho Jung-hun suggested that I attend a parliamentary inspection. Cho offered to arrange an opportunity for me to send a video letter to Minister Han Dong-hoon during the inspection of the Ministry of Justice. I watched the parliamentary inspection on YouTube live, and after my video, Minister Han was questioned by Cho and said, “I apologize for the victim’s not having a satisfactory feeling about the process.” I found it hard to believe what he said. The highest-ranking person in the Ministry of Justice apologized to me, an ordinary citizen. My eyes filled with tears. I thought that it was a good decision to keep living to have the minister apologize to me. It seemed to me that the justice system was so busy deflecting responsibility. When the minister called me afterward and wanted to talk to me about the shortcomings of the victim protection system, I said, “I’ll send you an email,” and he graciously gave me his email address. I sent him an A4 eight-page document with everything I had prepared. I asked him to prevent secondary victimization (retaliatory crimes), eliminate sentencing criteria not relevant to cases, and take care of the victims’ right to know. I was worried that it would be all talk and no action, but later the Ministry of Justice created a task force devised to help crime victims. What I realized was, ‘It’s all about getting the upper line to recognize.’
Former Minister Han wrote an endorsement for the book.
“He said he couldn’t do it when he was in the minister position, a public servant but as he quit, it’s okay to write an endorsement. I’m glad he quit (laughs).”
Thanks to you, the amendment to strengthen victims to have access and mimeograph trial records passed the cabinet meeting. What makes you keep going?
“Obviously, people around me. I fought because I didn’t want my loved ones to become victims. I want to create a society where victims don’t have to hide. I’ve created an online community for victims, and I’m also preparing educational programs. There were times when I thought, ‘If I had been dead, the law would have been changed,’ but I’m glad that I’m alive now. I can support other victims like this. The perpetrator will be released in 20 years, so I guess, my life has a 20-year “shelf life.” I think that I need to make it worthwhile. Things like fame and fortune mean nothing to a person who will die in 20 years. It’s better to do something worthwhile, something I wouldn’t be sorry to die for if I died tomorrow. Writing the book was very healing. The message, “It’s not my fault,” was unwavering, and it was hard, but I didn’t crash and burn.”
☞Busan roundhouse kick incident
On May 22, 2022, a man in his 30s indiscriminately assaulted Kim Jin-ju while she was returning home at dawn and committed a sexual crime. In September last year, the Supreme Court sentenced the perpetrator to 20 years in prison for rape and attempted murder. Due to Kim’s advocacy for victims’ rights, amendments to the law to protect victims, including strengthening the right of victims to view and copy trial records and expanding the identity disclosure of perpetrators, have recently been passed by the National Assembly.
