From "Murder" to "Acquittal": The Hidden Truth Behind the 36-Week Abortion Case

00:00 Intro
01:23 Verdict overturned... 1st trial "3 Years in Prison" → 2nd trial "Acquittal"
02:44 1st trial court: "Ms. A had the intent to kill the fetus"
03:36 2nd trial court: "Ms. A did not know the fetus was stillborn... No intent to kill"
05:00 Court recognizes "decision to terminate pregnancy as constitutional right to self-determination"
05:47 "A tragedy met amid a legislative vacuum; hope this becomes an opportunity for social discourse"
06:43 If safe information regarding pregnancy termination had been provided

Ms. A lived alone in a monthly rental room after being recommended for resignation from her workplace. She had little to no income and was socially isolated. Ms. A realized she was pregnant around the 34th to 36th week of pregnancy. As her belly grew larger, she visited an internal medicine clinic where she was told, "It seems you are more than 5 or 6 months pregnant." The next day, thinking it couldn't be true, she visited an obstetrics and gynecology clinic and was told, "You could give birth in 1 or 2 months." Four days after realizing her pregnancy, Ms. A underwent a pregnancy termination procedure at another obstetrics and gynecology clinic. At the time, Ms. A was at 36 weeks of pregnancy. The reason Ms. A chose to terminate the pregnancy after being rejected twice and visiting a third clinic was because she not only lacked the financial means, but also lacked the confidence to raise the baby if born. Ms. A uploaded a vlog video detailing the entire procedure on YouTube. The title is Total Surgery Cost 9 Million Won, 120 Hours Like Hell. The Ministry of Health and Welfare requested a police investigation after seeing Ms. A's video, 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 a pregnancy termination procedure. Ms. A was the first woman to face murder charges for choosing to terminate a pregnancy.

1. Verdict Overturned... 1st Trial "3 Years in Prison" → 2nd Trial "Acquittal"
The court of the first instance sentenced Ms. A to three years in prison with a five-year suspension of execution. It judged that Ms. A conspired with medical staff and the hospital director to have the fetus born and then kill it. On the other hand, the appellate court recently acquitted Ms. A. The factual relationships are identical, but why were the judgments of the first and second trial courts different? The core issue is "how much did Ms. A know" at the time of the pregnancy termination procedure. Her intent can be gauged through the scope of her awareness. Depending on whether she knew the fetus would be stillborn through a cesarean section and whether she knew the fetus could come out alive, the charges applied to Ms. A and the resulting sentencing would entirely differ. If Ms. A had proceeded with the operation knowing that the fetus would be born alive, the charge of "murder" would apply. Ms. A consistently argued, "I did not know the fetus would be born alive." In other words, she knew at the time of the pregnancy termination procedure that the fetus would come out stillborn. In fact, before the surgery, Ms. A asked the broker who connected her to the hospital whether the fetus would be stillborn, and received a response to the effect that "it comes out stillborn."
2. 1st Trial Court: "Ms. A Had Intent to Kill the Fetus"
The court of the first instance did not accept Ms. A's argument. It judged that "Ms. A was aware that the fetus would emerge alive outside the mother's body." 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 to die in some way, she accepted the risk by undergoing the pregnancy termination procedure." It also cited the fact that Ms. A signed a consent form for the disposal of the fetal body as grounds. According to Supreme Court precedents, murderous intent is recognized even if there is no specific purpose or intent to kill, simply by recognizing the possibility or risk that someone could die due to one's actions. Accordingly, the first trial court recognized Ms. A's dolus eventualis (conditional intent) for murder.
3. 2nd Trial Court: "Ms. A Did Not Know the Fetus Was Stillborn... No Intent to Kill"
The judgment of the appellate court was different. It accepted Ms. A's claim that "she knew the fetus would be stillborn." The court's judgment was that at the time of the surgery, Ms. A likely did not know that the procedure would be conducted in the "manner of taking a living fetus out of the mother's body via cesarean section and then killing it." In other words, it concluded that Ms. A had no intent to kill. The court stated that "there is no evidence to consider that Ms. A knew the broker's remark that 'the fetus is stillborn' was made without consulting the medical staff." Since she heard from the broker that "the fetus is stillborn," the court judged that Ms. A literally thought the fetus would come out stillborn. Furthermore, the court viewed Ms. A's signing of the fetal body disposal consent form not as condoning the medical staff's murder of the born fetus, but as "general content delegating the fetal body." The vlog video posted by Ms. A on YouTube also served as a basis for the ruling. The court noted, "If Ms. A had been aware of the circumstances or the method of extracting the fetus from the mother's body through cesarean section and then artificially killing it, posting the video on a YouTube channel would be a highly unusual act and difficult to accept readily."

4. Court Recognizes "Decision to Terminate Pregnancy as Constitutional Right to Self-Determination"
"The right of a pregnant woman to decide whether to maintain her body and pregnancy falls under the right to self-determination derived from the general personality right guaranteed by the Constitution." This was directly stated by Presiding Judge Kim Yong-seok at the end of the sentencing hearing. The court ruled that a mother's right to decide whether to continue her pregnancy is a "right to self-determination." The intent is that since a woman's decision to maintain or stop a pregnancy is a "right to self-determination" guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sufficiently guaranteed. The court also stated, "We will take into consideration mother A's intention to terminate the pregnancy in sentencing."

5. "A Tragedy Met Amid a Legislative Vacuum; Hope This Becomes an Opportunity for Social Discourse"
"I hope this serves as an opportunity for social discourse on how much confusion the medical community and mothers have fallen into to face 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 words were spoken by attorney Kim Myung-sun, Ms. A's legal representative, at a press conference immediately after the second trial sentencing. As attorney Kim mentioned, although the Constitutional Court ruled the abortion law unconstitutional seven years ago, substitute legislation has still not been enacted. Pregnancy termination is neither legal nor illegal. Social consensus and standards—such as up to how many weeks of pregnancy termination should be allowed, and what drugs, procedures, or surgeries a mother can choose for pregnancy termination—have not yet been established. Nothing has been decided.

6. If Safe Information Regarding Pregnancy Termination Had Been Provided
In the process of Ms. A being prosecuted and tried for murder, the responsibility of Ms. A's partner, who shares joint responsibility for the pregnancy, or the health authorities becomes blurred. Only the mother, who was placed in an environment where she had to choose pregnancy termination and ultimately carried out that choice, becomes the target of criticism—with remarks like, "Even 36 weeks is life, how can someone kill a life?" If there had been an institutional channel where Ms. A could request help or consult regarding pregnancy termination immediately after realizing her pregnancy, or if more accurate and safe information regarding pregnancy termination had been provided to Ms. A, the result might have been different. If tragedies occur to individuals due to the absence of social systems, how far can our society hold individuals accountable? It makes us ponder whether we are merely trying to fill the institutional vacuum caused by the state failing to fulfill its role for seven years with individuals' "ethical flaws." Although the crime of abortion has been abolished, women's pregnancy terminations remain subject to social censure, and the possibility of punishment for "murder" persists. People should not be driven into unwanted childbirth simply because they lacked information or were not financially well-off. On the 28th of last month, the prosecution filed an appeal against the acquittal of Ms. A. Now, the Supreme Court's judgment remains.

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