A Korean court has sentenced a man to three years and six months in prison for pouring boiling water on his sleeping wife’s face — exceeding the prosecution’s own sentencing request — and refused to accept the victim’s initial statement that she did not want him prosecuted, finding it did not reflect her genuine wishes. Here are the key points.

—

Background

– Around noon on December 3, 2025, A poured water boiled in an electric kettle over the face and neck of his Thai wife B, who was asleep at their home in Uijeongbu. B sustained serious burns.
– During the investigation, A denied the offense, claiming he had tripped and accidentally spilled the boiling water. He later admitted the offense in court and appealed for leniency.
– Prosecutors sought a three-year sentence. The court sentenced A to three years and six months — higher than the prosecution’s request.

—

The Non-Punishment Statement Issue

– Approximately two weeks after the incident, B visited A in detention and submitted a statement saying she did not wish to see him prosecuted.
– In March 2026, after consulting with lawyers from a migrant support organization, B reversed her position and submitted a statement saying she did want him prosecuted.
– The court declined to give weight to the original non-punishment statement, finding it did not reflect B’s true wishes. The court reasoned that B feared A’s possessive behavior and wanted a divorce, and had mistakenly believed that a lighter sentence would speed up the divorce process. The non-punishment statement appeared to have been motivated by sympathy after seeing A in detention — not by a genuine desire to forgive or protect him.

—

Court’s Sentencing Reasoning

– The Uijeongbu District Court (Criminal Division 12, Judge Kim Jun-yeong) identified several aggravating factors.
– The act itself — boiling water and pouring it onto a sleeping, defenseless person’s face — was described as a level of cruelty difficult to imagine from an ordinary person.
– The face is the body part most central to a person’s social life, and B was completely unprotected when attacked.
– The court found A appeared to have acted to prevent B from meeting other men, making recurrence a serious concern. The court also noted that even if B had been unfaithful as A claimed, nothing could justify such a violent act.
– The court drew attention to B’s particularly vulnerable position: she had met A in 2021, registered their marriage in 2024, but had been unable to obtain a marriage visa due to A failing to meet requirements. She was living in Korea on a temporary basis, had limited Korean language ability, and was socially and culturally isolated — circumstances that the court considered relevant to assessing the seriousness of the offense.

—

Key Takeaways

– A victim’s non-punishment statement in a domestic violence case is not automatically accepted at face value. Courts will examine the circumstances under which it was given, including the victim’s immigration status, dependency, fear, and whether the statement reflects a genuine and free expression of will.
– Where a victim subsequently reverses a non-punishment statement after receiving independent legal advice, courts may treat the reversal as more reliably reflecting the victim’s true position.
– A victim’s mistaken belief that a lighter sentence will facilitate a faster divorce is not a legitimate basis for giving weight to a non-punishment statement made under those circumstances.
– Courts may sentence above the prosecution’s recommended term where the gravity of the offense and the risk of reoffending warrant it.
– A victim’s social isolation, language barriers, and immigration vulnerability are relevant sentencing considerations — they heighten the seriousness of an abuser’s conduct by reflecting the degree of control and dependency involved.

—

Why This Matters

This ruling is a timely illustration of how Korean courts assess non-punishment statements in domestic violence cases involving foreign spouses — a context where power imbalances, immigration dependency, and social isolation can make the voluntariness of such statements particularly difficult to evaluate. For practitioners advising in domestic violence cases, the decision reinforces that non-punishment statements must be scrutinized for the conditions under which they were made, and that a victim’s subsequent reversal after receiving independent legal advice will carry significant weight. For policymakers, it highlights the particular vulnerability of migrant spouses in abusive marriages and the importance of accessible legal support for that population.

Article: https://mbiz.heraldcorp.com/article/10772681?ref=naver