KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Grabbing a Kitchen Knife to Face an Attacker With Scissors Is Lawful Self-Defense, Supreme Court Rules

By ,

A woman who grabbed a kitchen knife to confront her uncle after he punched her, entered her home, and threatened her with scissors has had her conviction overturned — with the Supreme Court finding her conduct constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act when viewed in the full context of what happened. Here are the key points.

Issue

Where a person grabs a kitchen knife to defend herself against a family member who has broken into her home, physically assaulted her, and threatened her with scissors, does picking up the knife constitute the crime of aggravated intimidation — or does it qualify as a justifiable act under the circumstances?

Facts

  • A had informed family members that her uncle B had sexually assaulted her as a child. Enraged, B came to A’s home in January 2023 and waited outside. When A returned from work and opened her front door, B immediately punched her in the face.
  • B then picked up a pair of scissors and threatened: “I’ll kill you and then myself.”
  • A went to the kitchen, took a knife, and responded: “Come at me if you want to die.”
  • During the standoff, A herself called 112. Even after B put down the scissors, A continued holding the knife until police arrived — but made no further threatening moves.
  • A was charged with aggravated intimidation for brandishing the knife. B was separately charged with assault causing injury.

Lower Court Decisions

  • The trial court convicted both parties. A received a fine of ₩3 million; B received a fine of ₩5 million.
  • The appellate court upheld A’s conviction but noted mitigating circumstances, converting the sentence to a fine of ₩3 million with one year of probation. It gave credit for the fact that B did not want A punished.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The Supreme Court (Criminal Division 1, presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) reversed A’s conviction on June 25, 2026, and remanded to Incheon District Court, finding A’s conduct likely qualifies as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

The court’s reasoning proceeded as follows.

  • Taking up a kitchen knife in a confrontational situation is, viewed in isolation, conduct that carries dangers and can attract negative evaluation. The court acknowledged this directly.
  • However, whether conduct constitutes a justifiable act requires assessment of the entire sequence of specific circumstances that led to it. The elements of justifiability are inseparably interrelated and must be evaluated as part of a holistic picture of a single course of events — not by isolating one moment from its context.
  • The fact that an act falls within a criminal provision but is not unlawful by virtue of being a justifiable act does not mean the conduct is affirmatively approved or encouraged. It means only that in the specific circumstances, the act did not carry the level of unlawfulness required for criminal punishment.
  • Denying justifiability solely on the basis of the negative assessment of grabbing the knife, without accounting for the totality of the situation — the prior childhood abuse, B’s unsolicited arrival at A’s home, the immediate physical attack, the scissors threat, and A’s own call to the police — would conflict with the legislative purpose of the justifiable act provision and with the concept of social norms that underlies it.

Key Takeaways

  • Whether grabbing a weapon in self-defense constitutes a justifiable act cannot be assessed by looking at the act of picking up the weapon in isolation. Courts must examine the full sequence: who initiated the confrontation, who escalated it, what threats were made, what the relationship between the parties is, and how the person claiming justifiability actually behaved throughout.
  • A justifiable act finding does not mean the conduct was ideal or recommended — it means that in the specific circumstances, the conduct did not rise to the level of criminal unlawfulness. This is a narrower and more precise concept than social approval.
  • Continuing to hold a defensive weapon even after the immediate threat has physically subsided — but before police have arrived to secure the situation — does not necessarily defeat a justifiable act claim, particularly where the person made no further threatening moves.
  • The fact that A herself called the police during the standoff is a significant contextual factor, indicating defensive rather than aggressive intent.
  • Defense counsel has noted this ruling as a meaningful signal that courts are beginning to take a somewhat broader view of self-defense and justifiable act claims — consistent with the trend visible in the Nana home invasion case and the Supreme Court’s recent en banc clarifications on proportionality.

Why This Matters

This ruling contributes to a growing body of Supreme Court decisions reconsidering how Korean courts assess defensive conduct in the context of sudden, serious threats. The court’s insistence on holistic contextual assessment — rather than isolated evaluation of the defensive act — is a meaningful doctrinal development. For practitioners, it reinforces that in cases involving defensive weapon use, the narrative of the entire episode matters as much as the legal characterization of any individual moment within it. For survivors of abuse who face violence from the same perpetrator years later, the decision also carries a particular resonance: the prior history between the parties is part of the relevant context, not background noise to be set aside.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=224642

Leave a comment