South Korea’s Constitutional Court has upheld a Criminal Act provision imposing a higher minimum sentence for murdering one’s own or a spouse’s direct ascendant. The justices ruled 8-1 that Article 250(2), which covers victims such as parents, has a rational basis and does not violate the Constitution.
The provision allows the death penalty, life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least seven years. Ordinary murder carries the death penalty, life imprisonment or a minimum prison term of five years. The ruling preserves that two-year difference in the statutory minimum and leaves sentencing courts to assess individual circumstances within the existing framework.
- Decision
- The provision was upheld by an 8-1 vote
- Enhanced minimum
- At least seven years of imprisonment
- Ordinary murder minimum
- At least five years of imprisonment
- Previous review
- The same provision was upheld 7-2 in 2013
The constitutional complaint arose from a caregiving case involving a seriously ill father who had difficulty moving and eating. His child, facing medical expenses while providing care, stopped supplying medication, therapeutic food, water and other necessities, leading to the father’s death. The caregiver was convicted of murdering a direct ascendant and received a final four-year prison sentence before challenging the provision.
The majority found that the heavier punishment serves the legitimate purpose of protecting the basic ethical relationship between direct ascendants and descendants. It reasoned that such a killing destroys the special bond and trust between parent and child while undermining the foundation of the family community. On that basis, the victim’s family status provides a reasonable ground for treating the offense more severely than ordinary murder.
The dissent focused on unequal circumstances
Justice Ma Eun-hyuk issued the sole dissent. He argued that the provision raises punishment based on family status without sufficiently distinguishing among sharply different motives and circumstances, including killings driven by greed, offenses following prolonged violence or abuse, and deaths connected to overwhelming caregiving burdens.
The dissent also emphasized the provision’s effect on sentencing flexibility. Even when a court applies discretionary mitigation, the seven-year minimum falls to three years and six months, making a suspended sentence unavailable unless another ground for reduction exists. The disagreement therefore centered not on whether direct-ascendant killings may be condemned, but on whether family status alone can justify a uniformly higher sentencing floor. The court had previously upheld the same provision in 2013 by a 7-2 vote, and the latest decision confirms that constitutional approach while preserving the debate over exceptional abuse and caregiving cases.