Constitutional Court upholds heavier sentence for killing a parent

The Constitutional Court said Thursday it had upheld the heavier statutory penalty for killing one's own parent, ruling 8-1 that a law that sets a minimum of seven years in prison does not breach the Constitution.

The court rejected a constitutional petition filed by a man convicted over the death of his father, finding that the provision in Article 250(2) of the Criminal Act, which covers those who kill a direct ascendant, is constitutional. The bench said lawmakers could treat the killing of a parent as more blameworthy than an ordinary homicide.

"The provision aggravates the punishment because a high degree of social condemnation is recognized for the depravity of a lineal descendant who makes a direct ascendant the object of a crime," the court said in its written opinion, adding that the protection of the moral relationship between parents and their children was the purpose of the law.

On proportionality, the court found the gap between the seven-year minimum for parricide and the five-year minimum for general murder was not wide, and held that judges can still impose a sentence that fits the offender's responsibility through discretionary mitigation based on extenuating circumstances.

"It is difficult to conclude that the legislature went beyond the bounds of its legislative discretion in setting the statutory penalty so that a suspended sentence cannot be handed down on grounds of ordinary mitigation alone," the court said.

One justice, Mah Eun-hyuk, dissented. He argued that a substantial share of parricide cases are driven by domestic violence or abuse suffered at the hands of the victim, so the moral culpability of offenders varies widely. Raising the minimum to seven years on the basis of the family relationship alone restricts individualized sentencing in violation of the principle that punishment must be proportionate to responsibility, he wrote. He added in a supplementary opinion that prosecuting such cases under the general murder provision would not weaken punishment, since the maximum penalty is the same death sentence.

The challenge arose from the case of a man indicted over his father's death in 2021. He was accused of cutting off the prescription drugs, therapeutic meals and water he had been providing and leaving his father unattended until he died. A district court sentenced him to four years in prison, an appeals court dismissed his appeal and he lodged his constitutional petition in May 2022.

The court also rejected the argument that the provision violates the equality principle, saying relationships covered by the aggravated clause differ in how they are formed and in the duties they carry.

The Thursday ruling reached the same conclusion as a July 25, 2013 decision on the same clause, when two justices dissented. The case number is 2022Hun-Ba95.