A 22-year prison sentence has been finalized for a man in his 40s who beat his teenage biological daughter to death with a blunt object following an argument.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Uhm Sang-pil) recently finalized the lower court's ruling against a man identified as A, who was indicted on charges of child abuse resulting in death under the Child Abuse Punishment Act.

A was indicted and detained for allegedly punching, kicking, and striking his 14-year-old daughter, B, on the head dozens of times with a blunt object at their home in Ansan, Gyeonggi Province, on October 19 of last year.

Investigations revealed that the two had lived apart for 10 years due to financial and other issues before starting to live together in 2022. A became enraged and committed the crime after an argument broke out because B attempted to hold her 3-year-old younger sibling despite her parents' intervention.

The first trial sentenced A to 18 years in prison and issued a seven-year employment restriction at child-related institutions.

This sentence was lower than the sentencing guidelines' recommended range of 20 to 30 years in prison.

The first trial took favorable circumstances into account, such as A turning himself in immediately after the crime, confessing, showing remorse, and the somewhat impulsive nature of the act.

The second trial accepted the prosecution's appeal that the sentence was excessively lenient and sentenced him to 22 years in prison.

The appellate court pointed out, "The method of the crime was extremely brutal, striking the back of the victim's head more than 25 times with an iron hammer handle until it broke, even as the child tried to protect her head with her hands for minimal defense."

Regarding A's surrender to authorities, the court ruled that it could not be factored into reducing the sentence, stating, "Because it took place after the victim had already died and the irreversible outcome had occurred, it did not contribute to restoring the damage or preventing the consequence."

Furthermore, the second trial dismissed the first court's partial recognition of the crime's impulsive nature, stating, "Even assuming the crime was not planned in advance, the gravity of such a brutal crime cannot be mitigated."

(Photo provided by Yonhap News TV, Yonhap News)