The Controversial Vlog on "120 Hours Like Hell": How Did Ms. A Be Acquitted of "Murder"?

Ms. A discovered she was pregnant at around 34 to 36 weeks of pregnancy. Her abdomen gradually swelled, and after visiting an internal medicine clinic, she was told, "It looks like you are more than 5 or 6 months pregnant." The next day, she visited an obstetrics and gynecology clinic just in case, where she was told, "You could give birth in a month or two." Four days after realizing she was pregnant, Ms. A underwent an abortion procedure at another obstetrics and gynecology clinic. At the time, Ms. A was 36 weeks pregnant. The reason Ms. A sought out a third clinic and chose to undergo an abortion after being turned away twice was because she not only lacked the financial means but also had no confidence in raising a baby if she gave birth. Ms. A uploaded a vlog video capturing the entire procedure on YouTube. The title is "Total Surgery Cost 9 Million Won, 120 Hours Like Hell." The Ministry of Health and Welfare saw Ms. A's video and requested an investigation by the police, and investigative authorities referred Ms. A to trial after conducting investigations. The charge was "murder." The accusation was that Ms. A "killed" the fetus by undergoing the abortion procedure. Ms. A was the first woman to face murder charges for choosing an abortion.

1. The Verdict Overturned... From 3 Years in Prison in the 1st Trial to Acquittal in the 2nd Trial
The court in the first trial sentenced Ms. A to three years in prison with five years of probation. It determined that Ms. A conspired with the medical staff and the hospital director to deliver the fetus and then kill it. On the other hand, the appellate court recently acquitted Ms. A. The factual circumstances were identical, so why did the judgments of the first and second trial courts differ? The core issue is "how much did Ms. A know" at the time of the abortion procedure. Her intent can be gauged through the scope of her awareness. Depending on whether she knew that the fetus would be stillborn through a Cesarean section, and whether she knew that the fetus could emerge in a living state, the charges applied to Ms. A and the resulting sentencing would vary entirely. If Ms. A had proceeded with the surgery knowing that the fetus would be born alive, the charge of "murder" would apply. Ms. A consistently maintained, "I did not know the fetus would be born alive." In other words, she claimed that at the time of the abortion procedure, she knew the fetus would come out stillborn. Indeed, prior to the surgery, Ms. A asked a broker who connected her to the hospital, "Will the fetus be stillborn?" and received an answer to the effect of, "It comes out stillborn."

2. 1st Trial Court: "Ms. A Had Intent to Kill the Fetus"
The first trial court did not accept Ms. A's claim. It ruled that "Ms. A was aware that the fetus would emerge from the maternal body alive." The court stated, "Ms. A was aware of the possibility of the fetus's birth during the procedure and, despite anticipating that the medical staff would cause the fetus's death in some way, she accepted the risk by undergoing the abortion procedure." It also cited the fact that Ms. A signed a consent form for the handling of the fetal corpse as grounds. According to Supreme Court precedents, criminal intent for murder is established even without a specific purpose or intent to kill, simply by recognizing the possibility or risk that someone could die as a result of one's actions. Consequently, the first trial court recognized Ms. A's eventual intent to commit murder.

3. 2nd Trial Court: "Ms. A Did Not Know the Fetus Was Stillborn... No Intent to Kill"
The appellate court reached a different conclusion. It accepted Ms. A's claim that "she knew the fetus would be stillborn." The court judged that at the time of the surgery, Ms. A likely did not know that the procedure would be conducted in the manner of "delivering a live fetus from the maternal body via Cesarean section and then killing it." In other words, the court concluded that Ms. A had no intent to kill. The court noted, "There is no evidence to deem that Ms. A knew the broker's remark that 'the fetus will be stillborn' was made without even consulting the medical staff." Since she was told by the broker that "the fetus is stillborn," the court reasoned that Ms. A literally believed the fetus would emerge stillborn. Furthermore, the court viewed that Ms. A's signing of the fetal corpse disposal consent form did not mean she tolerated the medical staff's killing of the born infant, but rather appeared to be "general content delegating the fetal corpse." The vlog video posted by Ms. A on YouTube also served as a basis for the verdict. The court stated, "If Ms. A had been aware of the circumstances or the method of extracting the fetus from the maternal body through a Cesarean section and then artificially killing it, posting the video on a YouTube channel would be a highly unusual act and very difficult to readily understand."

4. Court Recognizes "Decision to Undergo Abortion = Constitutional Right to Self-Determination"
"The right of a pregnant woman to decide whether to maintain her body and pregnancy state falls under the right to self-determination derived from the general right to personality guaranteed by the Constitution." This was directly stated by Presiding Judge Kim Yong-seok near the end of the sentencing hearing. The court ruled that a pregnant woman's right to decide whether to continue her pregnancy is a "right to self-determination." The intent is that a woman's decision to maintain or terminate her pregnancy is a "right to self-determination" guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore must be sufficiently protected. The court also stated, "We will take into consideration the fact that this incident stemmed from pregnant woman Ms. A's intent to terminate her pregnancy in sentencing."

5. "A Tragedy Amidst a Legislative Vacuum, Hopefully an Opportunity for Social Public Discourse"
"I hope this serves as an opportunity for social public discourse on how great the confusion was that medical circles and pregnant women fell into, facing such a tragedy amid the ongoing legislative vacuum following the Constitutional Court's decision of non-conformity to the Constitution regarding the crime of abortion." These are the remarks made by lawyer Kim Myung-sun, Ms. A's legal representative, during a press conference immediately after the appellate ruling. As lawyer Kim's remarks indicate, although the Constitutional Court declared the crime of abortion non-conformity to the Constitution seven years ago, substitute legislation has still not been enacted. Abortion is effectively neither legal nor illegal. Social consensus and standards—such as up to how many weeks of pregnancy abortion should be permitted, and what medications, procedures, or surgeries a pregnant woman can choose for an abortion—have not yet been established. Nothing whatsoever has been decided.

6. If Safe Information Regarding Abortion Had Been Provided
In the process of Ms. A being indicted for murder and standing trial, the responsibility of Ms. A's partner, who shares responsibility for the pregnancy, or health authorities becomes blurred. Only the pregnant woman, who was placed in an environment where she had to choose an abortion and ultimately went through with that choice, becomes the target of criticism—with remarks such as, "36 weeks is a life, how could someone murder a life?" If there had been an institutional channel where Ms. A could request help or receive consultation regarding abortion immediately after realizing her pregnancy, and if more accurate and safe information regarding abortion had been provided to Ms. A, the outcome might have been different. If tragedies occur to individuals due to the absence of social systems, to what extent can our society hold individuals accountable? It makes us wonder whether we are simply trying to fill the institutional vacuum caused by the state failing to fulfill its role for seven years with individuals' "moral flaws." Although the crime of abortion has been abolished, women's abortions remain subject to criticism, and the possibility of punishment for "murder" still persists. People should not be driven into unwanted childbirth simply because of a lack of information or because they are not financially well-off. On the 28th of last month, the prosecution filed an appeal against the acquittal of Ms. A. Now, the judgment of the Supreme Court remains.

(Reported by Jo Yoon-ha | Produced by Shin Hee-suk | Filmed by Bae Moon-san | Video Editing by Na Hong-hee | Design by Yang Hye-min | Produced by SBS Digital News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.