Appellate judge draws fire for saying 'Busan roundhouse-kick' victim also 'played to the media'

The perpetrator in the so-called "Busan roundhouse-kick" case, who faces additional charges of threatening the victim in retaliation, is standing trial on appeal.

The judge overseeing the appellate trial has come under fire for remarks suggesting the victim also "played to the media."

On Wednesday, the Busan High Court's Criminal Division 2, presided over by Judge Park Woon-sam, held an appellate hearing for the defendant, identified as A.

A is charged with retaliatory intimidation under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes.

The court had concluded arguments in July and was set to issue its ruling on Aug. 12.

But it reopened deliberations after A's side requested to reopen the trial and question a witness.

At the hearing that day, C, a YouTuber who had been held in the same cell as A at a Busan detention center for about two weeks, testified via video.

During the questioning, the presiding judge asked, in essence, "The defendant is making his own claims, but isn't it true that the content of those claims shouldn't be something the victim would find frightening?"

In response, the victim's attorney objected, saying, "I want to say something about the idea that the victim isn't hurt just because the perpetrator plays to the media."

The presiding judge then explained the intent behind the remark, saying, "Hasn't there also been considerable media play on the victim's side during this trial?"

The victim's attorney raised the issue again, arguing it was inappropriate to describe the victim's media activities as "playing to the media."

The presiding judge cut off further exchanges, saying, "I feel like this case is somehow becoming politicized."

He added, "Our court makes no such judgment whatsoever — we are only confirming the facts and applying the law."

In response, the victim, Kim Jin-ju, posted on social media, "Who told me to speak out publicly if I wanted to prove I was wronged?"

She added, "The judge said I probably wasn't afraid of the retaliatory threats."

Kim wrote, "The trial was reopened so abruptly that I had to rush to hire a lawyer, and when I showed up in court Thursday, I didn't expect it to be this bad."

She asked, "Who would come forward or report anything for a victim if this is how it goes?"

Meanwhile, C testified that he had heard A make retaliatory remarks about the victim multiple times during the period they were held together.

C said, "Every evening he would say things like that — while looking over case records, or even while writing letters, he kept bringing it up."

C added that A knew the victim's address and had said he would go find her if he were released.

However, C drew a line at saying whether A had directly asked him to convey these retaliatory intentions to the victim or to broadcast the threats as they were.

C testified that, based on his conversations with A, he sensed A intended, to some degree, to frighten the victim into avoiding media interviews.

The court plans to hold one more hearing on Oct. 7 at 3 p.m. to hear final statements from both sides before concluding arguments.