Woman who stabbed stranger at traditional market has 8-year sentence upheld on appeal

A woman in her 20s who stabbed a stranger at a traditional market, leaving her seriously injured, had her eight-year prison sentence upheld on appeal.

According to legal sources, the Second Criminal Division of the Gwangju High Court, presided over by Chief Judge Hwang Jin-hee, dismissed appeals by both the defendant and prosecutors on Wednesday and upheld the original ruling in the attempted murder case against the defendant, identified only as A, 21.

A was indicted on charges of attempted murder after stabbing the victim, a woman in her 60s identified only as B, multiple times with a knife at an underwear store inside a traditional market in Suncheon, South Jeolla Province, at around 7:02 p.m. on Sept. 25 last year.

On the day of the attack, A purchased a knife at the market and spent about 30 minutes wandering through several stores looking for a target. She found B eating dinner, entered the store pretending to browse, then suddenly attacked her.

When B fled outside, A gave chase and continued to slash at her. The attack stopped only after bystanders called police and officers arrived on the scene.

B sustained serious injuries requiring 10 weeks of medical treatment.

Investigators found that A had taken a job at a food processing company in Gwangyang but was fired after three weeks for assaulting a foreign employee. Fearing her family would find out, she decided to carry out the attack.

During the police investigation, A said she thought it would be better to commit a crime and get caught by police than to have her dismissal become known.

She also reportedly stated that she felt good watching the victim suffer and that she had no regrets about the attack.

After the first-instance court handed down the eight-year sentence, A appealed, arguing the sentence was too harsh and that she had been in a state of diminished mental capacity due to an intellectual disability at the time of the attack. Prosecutors also appealed, contending the sentence was too lenient.

The appeals court ruled that a review of the lower court record made it difficult to conclude that A had been in a state of diminished mental capacity. It added that a letter of remorse submitted by A, petitions from her family, proof of installment payments for the victim's medical expenses, and the victim's own petition calling for a severe sentence — all submitted during the appeal — did not amount to a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant altering the sentence.