Public outrage has arisen after it was revealed that the defendant’s mother, in her 30s, who is currently incarcerated for the ‘Suwon refrigerator infant body incident’, is currently in the second trimester of pregnancy.
At the trial of Mr. A on charges of murder and concealment of the body held at the Suwon District Court Criminal Division 12 (Presiding Judge In-seong Hwang) on the 11th, the defense lawyer asked her husband, Mr. B, who appeared as a witness, “The defendant is currently 15 weeks pregnant. Do you know this fact?” , Mr. B replied, “I heard it through an interview.”
Considering the extent of Ms. A’s pregnancy, it is presumed that she became pregnant before the crime was discovered by investigative agencies. During the day’s interrogation, the defense lawyer reprimanded the husband’s indifference to his wife, who repeatedly became pregnant and gave birth.
The defense lawyer said, “After giving birth to three children by cesarean section, the defendant gave birth to the victim’s infant through a method that even the obstetrics and gynecology department tried to prevent. It is said that she chose this method because she did not want to inform her husband of the pregnancy and did not have consent,” he said. “Why would a person called the husband act so irresponsibly? “I’m angry that they didn’t even care about birth control,” he said.
In response, Mr. B said, “If I had acted properly, her wife would not have committed the crime like that,” and she added, “I believe that she committed the crime by continuously inflicting invisible harm on her spouse. “She feels responsible,” he said.
Person A’s side claimed that the defendant committed the crime while in a state of extreme excitement, including suffering from postpartum depression. However, the prosecution presented the content of the defendant’s KakaoTalk conversation with her husband and countered that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime was different from usual.
The prosecution asked Mr. B, “Did you not feel that something was strange while talking to the defendant (on the day of the crime)?” and Mr. B responded, “I didn’t know much because I didn’t talk to him directly.”
Mr. A’s side wanted to keep Mr. B’s witness examination confidential on this day for reasons such as privacy, but agreed to proceed with the trial as an open trial in accordance with the court’s decision. The court ruled, “The moment state agencies have already intervened in this case, it does not seem to be a problem for individuals.”
Person A was arrested and indicted on charges of killing two babies born in November 2018 and November 2019 and storing their bodies in a refrigerator in his apartment. She, who already has three children with her husband, Mr. B, including a 12-year-old daughter, a 10-year-old son, and an 8-year-old daughter, was found to have committed the crime when she became pregnant again 온라인카지노while experiencing financial difficulties.
Around November 2018, Mr. A brought his daughter, his fourth child and first murder victim, home after giving birth at the hospital and strangled her to death. Then, in November 2019, after giving birth to his fifth child and second murder victim, a son, at the hospital, he died in the same manner in an alley near the hospital. The babies’ bodies were placed in black plastic bags and stored in the refrigerator.
His crime was revealed in May of this year when the Board of Audit and Inspection discovered a case of a ‘shadow baby’ in which there was a birth record but the birth was not registered as a result of an audit of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
Mr. A’s side argues that the crime of infanticide, which carries a lighter statutory penalty, should be applied instead of murder, saying, “The crime of infanticide should be determined based on the psychological state of the mother, not the time interval immediately after delivery.” In addition, the position is that the defendant’s act of storing the infant’s body in the refrigerator at home without moving the location (the first victim) cannot be considered a charge of hiding the body.