Father who beat 14-year-old daughter to death with hammer sentenced to 22 years

A man in his 40s who beat his teenage daughter to death with a blunt object has had a 22-year prison sentence finalized.

The Supreme Court's Third Division, presided over by Justice Eom Sang-pil, recently upheld the lower court's 22-year sentence for the man, identified only as A, who was indicted on charges of child abuse resulting in death under the Child Abuse Punishment Act.

A was arrested and indicted after fatally beating his daughter, identified as B, then 14, at their home in Ansan, Gyeonggi Province, on Oct. 19 last year. He punched and kicked her before striking her head dozens of times with a blunt object.

Investigators found that A had lived apart from B for about 10 years due to financial difficulties before they began living together in 2022. The attack was triggered after an argument escalated when B tried to hold her three-year-old brother despite her parents' objections.

The first trial sentenced A to 18 years in prison and barred him from working at child-related institutions for seven years.

That sentence fell below the recommended range of 20 to 30 years under sentencing guidelines. The court cited mitigating factors including A's voluntary surrender immediately after the crime, his confession and remorse, and the somewhat impulsive nature of the act.

The second court, however, accepted prosecutors' appeal that the sentence was too lenient and increased it to 22 years.

The appellate court described the method of the attack as "extremely brutal," noting that A struck the back of the victim's head more than 25 times with an iron hammer handle until it broke, even as the child tried to shield her head with her hands.

On A's voluntary surrender, the court ruled it could not be considered a mitigating factor, saying it "occurred after the victim had already died and an irreversible outcome had taken place, contributing nothing to the recovery of harm or the prevention of the result."

The court also rejected the first trial's partial recognition of the impulsive nature of the crime, stating that "even if there was a need for discipline, the problem should have been resolved through appropriate means such as dialogue and persuasion, and therefore it cannot serve as grounds for a reduced sentence."

A appealed to the Supreme Court, but the court ruled that even if voluntary surrender is recognized, a court may reduce or waive a sentence at its discretion — it is not obligated to do so.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, saying that "even taking into account the circumstances raised in the grounds for appeal, it cannot be said that the appellate court's sentencing of the defendant to 22 years in prison and other penalties was grossly unjust."