Over Alcohol Expenses... Man in His 60s Sentenced to 13 Years for Killing Friend of 20 Years

Same Sentence Upheld in Both Initial and Appellate Trials

A man in his 60s who assaulted and killed his friend of 20 years after a dispute over alcohol expenses has been sentenced to 13 years in prison at both the first and appellate trials.

On July 16, the first criminal division of the Busan High Court, presided over by Chief Judge Kim Juho, dismissed the appeal of the defendant, a man in his 60s identified as A, who had been indicted on charges of murder, and upheld the original 13-year prison sentence.

A was brought to trial for causing the death of his acquaintance B, who was in his 50s, on November 9 last year in front of A's home in Buk-gu, Busan. A allegedly slammed B’s head against a wall and repeatedly kicked his face and body, leading to B’s death. Investigation revealed the two had known each other for the past 20 years and had a dispute while drinking together at the time of the incident over splitting the drinking bill.

The two had several drinking sessions together, and the entire bill was paid with B's card. The total amount spent on alcohol reached 1.28 million won. B asked A to pay half, or 640,000 won, but A replied that his financial situation was difficult and he could only repay 400,000 won. This led to a heated argument, resulting in the police being called. Afterwards, B continued to demand repayment, and A became resentful. On the day of the incident, B applied superglue to the lock on A's front door, prompting A to violently assault B in a fit of rage. B eventually died after being treated at a hospital for a skull fracture and cerebral hemorrhage.

During the trial, A admitted to striking B but claimed there was no intent to kill. However, the first trial court did not accept this argument and sentenced him to 13 years in prison. A appealed, arguing that the court had misunderstood the facts and that the sentencing was unfair.

The appellate court stated, "The original judgment is justified and there is no illegality due to a misunderstanding of the facts," adding, "Considering the severity of the harm caused, sentencing factors, and the Supreme Court’s sentencing guidelines, the original sentence is appropriate to the defendant’s responsibility," and dismissed A’s appeal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.