Constitutional Court Upholds Harsher Penalties for Killing Direct Ascendants

The Constitutional Court has reaffirmed that harsher penalties for those who murder their direct ascendants do not violate the constitution.

On October 22, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of the constitutionality of the provision in Article 250, Section 2 of the Criminal Code concerning the murder of one’s direct ascendants.

In this case, an individual, referred to as A, was charged after his father, who had been hospitalized since September 2020 due to severe intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage, died from pneumonia in April 2021. A was accused of neglecting to provide necessary medication, therapeutic food, and water, leading to his father's death from severe malnutrition.

Both the first and second trials sentenced A to four years in prison. During the appeal process, A requested a constitutional review of Article 250, Section 2. The Supreme Court dismissed A's appeal and also rejected the request for a constitutional review. Subsequently, A filed a constitutional complaint regarding the provision.

Article 250, Section 2 states that anyone who murders their direct ascendant or that of their spouse shall be punished with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or more.

The court stated, "The provision in question recognizes a high degree of social condemnation for the act of killing one’s direct ascendant, thus justifying the increased penalty. This serves the legislative purpose of protecting the moral relationships between direct ascendants and descendants."

Additionally, the court explained, "In cases where there are mitigating circumstances that could lessen the offender's responsibility, appropriate sentences can be determined through considerations of mitigating factors. Therefore, the limited availability of probation does not render the statutory penalties excessively harsh."

The court further noted, "The obligations and nature of relationships between direct ascendants and descendants, as well as between spouses and those who raise others as their own, are not identical. Thus, it is not unreasonable for the legislature to impose harsher penalties for the murder of direct ascendants while treating other types of murder under general homicide laws."

However, Justice Ma Eun-hyeok expressed a dissenting opinion, stating, "It cannot be concluded that the culpability of a perpetrator who is a direct descendant is inherently greater than that of someone who kills a person outside of that relationship." He added that in cases where direct ascendants perpetrate violence, the act of a descendant killing them to protect their dignity should not be punished more severely based on cultural and legal sentiments.

A court official noted that the Constitutional Court had previously ruled 7-2 that the provision in question does not violate the principles of proportionality and equality in punishment. In this case, the court maintained its previous conclusion with an 8-1 ruling that the provision does not violate the constitution.