Supreme Court Reverses Conviction of Niece Who Wielded Knife Against Uncle in Retaliation for Revealing Sexual Abuse

The Supreme Court has recognized as a justifiable act the self-defense of a niece who confronted her uncle with a weapon after he came to her home, assaulted her, and threatened her with scissors in retaliation for her disclosing that he had sexually abused her when she was a child.

The Supreme Court recently overturned the lower court's ruling—which had sentenced 39-year-old A to a 3 million won fine with a one-year stay of execution on charges of special intimidation—and sent the case back to the Incheon District Court.

A was put on trial on charges of threatening 76-year-old uncle B by holding a kitchen knife and saying, "If you want to die, you die. If you want to die, come on."

Previously, A had revealed to family members that she was sexually abused by B during her childhood.

Enraged by this, B went to A's home, struck returning A in the face, and threw a drawer.

Following the assault, B threatened A with scissors, saying, "I'll kill you and die with you."

During this process, A suffered finger injuries requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

In response, A also fought back with a kitchen knife and directly called 112.

After B put down the scissors, investigations showed that A merely held the knife until the police arrived and did not issue any further threats.

The first trial found the special intimidation charges guilty and sentenced A to a 3 million won fine.

The second trial also did not recognize legitimate self-defense, but citing extenuating circumstances in the background of the crime, suspended the execution of the 3 million won fine for one year.

The Supreme Court reached a different conclusion.

The Supreme Court ruled that A picking up the kitchen knife was "an act driven by fear to protect herself out of terror" and "an act done with a desperate feeling that she needed to stop B's continued assault."

It also considered factors such as B bearing greater responsibility given the origin and background of the dispute, A's response being relatively minor, and A suffering more severe damage.

The Supreme Court determined that there is a strong possibility A's action "met the requirements of a justifiable act and did not significantly exceed the bounds of what is socially acceptable."

(Reported by Jung Da-eun, Video by Kim Na-on, Graphics by Lee Jung-joo, Produced by SBS Digital News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.