Safety Net Fails as "Low Risk" Assessment Ends in Tragedy

An appellate court has upheld a heavy prison sentence for a man in his 60s who brutally murdered his wife just one week after his court-ordered restraining order expired. The ruling highlights critical gaps in the monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators and flaws in the risk assessment systems used by law enforcement.

Court Ruling: "Original Sentence is Justified"
On the 17th, the Criminal Division 2 of the Seoul High Court (Incheon Branch), presided over by Judge Lee Jung-min, dismissed the prosecution's appeal and upheld the 27-year prison sentence for A (60s), a Chinese national indicted for murder.

The appellate court stated, "There are no new circumstances to warrant a change in sentencing since the original ruling. The grounds for a life sentence argued by the prosecution were already sufficiently considered in the first trial."

Timeline of a Predicted Tragedy
The crime committed by A was both persistent and premeditated. On the afternoon of June 19 last year, A waited for his wife, B, at the entrance of an officetel in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, where he fatally stabbed her multiple times with a weapon he had prepared in advance.

Previously, in December 2024, A had been served with a temporary court order prohibiting him from approaching within 100 meters of B or contacting her following charges of special intimidation. However, the tragedy struck almost immediately after this legal shield was removed. He committed the murder just one week after the protective measures expired.

Controversy Over Law Enforcement Response
Public outcry has intensified following revelations of the police's handling of the situation prior to the murder. Investigations revealed that A had visited his wife's residence to threaten her both three days and one day before the actual killing.

Police officers who responded to the scene three days prior evaluated the victim's risk level as a "2," which is lower than the threshold of "3" required for emergency temporary measures. Consequently, no immediate action was taken to isolate the perpetrator or provide enhanced protection for the victim, leading to a fatal oversight in the judicial safety net.