Early on the 11th, a 15-year-old female youth was stabbed to death at a shared accommodation in Jeongneung-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul. The man urgently arrested on murder charges was a 59-year-old father whose son had been accused of sexual crimes. The headlines of the initial reports were overwhelmingly framed as "Murder of a Sexual Crime Victim by the Perpetrator's Father."

An exclusive report by Yonhap News TV claimed that the father demanded a settlement, and upon refusal, committed the murder. Reading this far, most people would assume that the father, enraged by the victim's refusal to settle and thereby help reduce his son's sentence for sexual assault charges filed by the victim, committed the crime out of misguided paternal love.

Immediately following the incident, some online comments and community boards already operated on this assumption, posting that if the sexual assault accusation was false, the father's motive was understandable, defending the perpetrator, and blaming the slain victim.

However, the facts that came to light later were vastly different. Police stated that no confirmation existed regarding any conversation about a settlement. The son was not in custody for a sexual offense, but rather for theft. Furthermore, the sexual crime complaint was not filed by the deceased victim, but by her parents. In January, the parents filed a complaint against the man's son for quasi-rape of a minor, and police forwarded the case without detention in March.

The son had lured men through a random chat app for "conditional dating" to steal their valuables, for which he received a probation sentence. He is currently detained for a separate theft case. A 26-year-old woman, who had a de facto marital relationship with the suspect, is under investigation for forcing the deceased into prostitution and theft. At the crime scene, briquettes and a document suspected to be the suspect's suicide note were found, stating that this woman—not his son—had no involvement in the theft. The exact motive remains unconfirmed.

In subsequent reports, the lines I read and re-read several times were these: the deceased had been a victim of sexual violence, had filed multiple reports of domestic violence, was a youth shelter user, and was an individual under investigation for theft. The police, the prosecution, local governments, and shelters each handled different aspects of what the deceased went through. Amidst this complex web of facts, one thing remains certain: the deceased was the epitome of a "vulnerable youth." The arduous life of a 15-year-old girl who had never received proper protection—neither from society nor from her family, nor from any relationship—ultimately ended in an untimely death.

It has been about 15 years since the term "runaway youth families" (gachulpaem) first appeared in the media. Before that, there were "juvenile delinquents," and afterward, "deviation accounts." All of these are names focused on what youths did: ran away from home, stole items, went on conditional dates, posted photos. When called by such names, the corresponding countermeasures were always crackdowns, guidance, and forced returns home.

The legal provision designating youths funneled into prostitution as "target children and youths" and subjecting them to protective disposition was only changed to "victim children and youths" in 2020. Six years later, this year, the deceased was a subject of investigation in a case where she was allegedly forced into prostitution and theft. Yet, society rarely asked who the adults were that provided shelter, food, and money to a 15-year-old who left home, or what those adults demanded of her in return. This makes us deeply question whether a society that has consistently reduced the issue to the behaviors of youths under labels like juvenile delinquency, deviation accounts, or runaway networks bears no responsibility at all.

Bank of Korea announced that third-quarter economic growth reached 1.0%, more than triple projections. Annual growth is expected to exceed the mid-3% range, and the government proudly asserts that entering the $40,000 per capita gross national income mark is certain, with tax revenues overflowing.

Yet, one cannot help but ask: why do those at the bottom sink even lower? I believe that issues such as the 7-day limit at temporary shelters and sexual crime cases left unindicted for eight months could change if proper budgets and manpower were allocated. In the meantime, politics merely incites vulnerable groups to fight among themselves. I cannot recall a single instance where youth shelter budgets or dedicated child abuse personnel became key election agenda items.

The government has stated it will strengthen the youth safety network. I want to know where that reinforcement begins: How many places where youths unable to return home can stay without a time limit will be added? Who checks where a youth goes the day after spending their 7-day limit at a temporary shelter? Who looks at both sides when a youth who is a sexual assault victim becomes a target of investigation in a separate case? Who is responsible for separating a youth mobilized in crime from the adults who manipulated them while investigations are underway?

I write this to a 15-year-old girl whose name and face I do not know: I am sorry we made you live in such a society. May you rest in peace.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]