Constitutional Court Rules Law Punishing Parricide More Severely Than Ordinary Murder Is Constitutional

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the clause in the Criminal Act prescribing heavier penalties for murdering direct ascendants, such as parents, compared to ordinary murder does not violate the Constitution.

On October 22, the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint filed by an individual identified as A, who claimed that Article 250, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act—which provides for the crime of parricide—infringes upon the rights to equality and the pursuit of happiness. The court upheld the provision in an 8-to-1 majority decision.

The provision stipulates that a person who kills a direct ascendant shall be punished by the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for not less than 7 years.

This carries a heavier penalty than ordinary murder, which is punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for not less than 5 years.

A was indicted on charges of parricide for neglecting his father, whom he had been caring for, and received a finalized prison sentence of 4 years in March 2022.

His father had been hospitalized for cerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage starting in September 2020. Due to financial difficulties in covering medical expenses, the father was discharged in April of the following year.

At the time, the father was paralyzed in his limbs, unable to move independently, and had to receive nutrition through a feeding tube inserted into his nose.

He also repeatedly suffered from respiratory distress caused by pneumonia, requiring continuous monitoring.

However, A, who was responsible for caregiving, completely withheld prescribed medications after the discharge and provided less than the normal amount of therapeutic food.

Beginning a week after the discharge, A completely neglected his father.

The father ultimately died from pneumonia and other complications amidst a state of severe malnutrition.

During the trial, A applied for a motion for a constitutional review of the parricide provision, but when the court dismissed it, he filed a constitutional complaint in May 2022.

The Constitutional Court (majority opinion) stated, "The provision subject to review aims to protect human relationships and increase penalties because killing one's direct ascendant warrants a high degree of social condemnation for violating filial duty, and its legislative purpose is recognized as legitimate."

The court further noted, "Parricide fundamentally undermines the special bond and trust between parents and children and destroys the foundation of the family community, resulting in a very high degree of illegality. Therefore, there is a rational basis for the legislature to establish statutory penalties heavier than those for ordinary murder in consideration of this."

Meanwhile, Justice Ma Eun-hyuk issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the provision violates the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment by uniformly imposing aggravated penalties without considering specific circumstances such as the motive for the crime.

Justice Ma pointed out, "While there are heinous crimes driven by greed, there are also crimes that occur when accumulated anger explodes after enduring long-term violence or abuse by a direct ascendant. For this reason, when a parricide occurs, it is difficult to conclude solely based on the offender's status as a descendant that the level of blameworthiness is greater than when someone other than a direct ascendant is killed."

He stated, "Because the degree of blameworthiness among perpetrators of parricide varies widely, the range of sentences can also fluctuate significantly. However, the subject provision uniformly increases the lower limit of the statutory penalty to 'imprisonment for not less than 7 years' without considering specific circumstances," adding that "this leads to results where the punishment is not proportionate to the degree of responsibility."

The Constitutional Court previously issued a constitutional ruling upholding the parricide provision in July 2013.

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.