Punishment for Special Assault | A Wrongful Special Assault Charge Defended Through a Suspension of Indictment

The client's case as identified by the attorney is as follows.

The client had recently been experiencing serious conflict over issues involving his wife and child.

The child was not the client's biological child but a child whom his wife had brought with her after divorcing her former husband.

Although the child was not his biological child, the client gave the child love as if the child were his own.

Nevertheless, the child treated the client as a father only when the child needed money, and otherwise always showed a dismissive attitude.

The client had recently been in serious conflict with the child over money, and he happened to overhear the child say to his wife, "Mom, just divorce that man. Why live with him when he does not even give you money?"

Greatly angered by this, the client picked up a baseball bat that was in the house and was about to swing it, but upon seeing his wife trying to stop him, he threw the baseball bat to the floor and stopped his action.

However, the child reported to the police that the client had assaulted the child and the child's mother, and this is how the case came about.

Unlike ordinary assault, where assault is committed with a dangerous object, the dangerousness is considered greater than that of ordinary 🔗assault, so the person is subject to aggravated punishment for special assault.

Special assault is an offense committed when a person assaults another ▲through the force of a group or multitude or ▲while carrying a dangerous object.

If a special assault charge is found to be established, the person is subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding ten million won.

The dangerous object referred to in special assault means an object capable of causing harm to a person's body.

Not only a dangerous weapon but even an everyday object may, depending on the purpose and manner of its use, be regarded as a dangerous object, so that special assault may be established.

■Everyday Objects Recognized as Instruments of Special Assault

1. Mobile Phone

This was a case in which a victim was injured after being struck on the head several times with a mobile phone.

In this case, the court viewed the mobile phone as a dangerous object used in the special assault.

The court determined that, because the mobile phone is made of a hard metal material, considering its size and weight, striking the head with the thin lower edge of the phone held upright could cause serious harm to the body.

The court stated that, while it cannot be denied that a mobile phone is an object widely carried and used for telecommunications in daily life and is a necessity for modern people, in light of the phone's durable material and the manner of its use, it may constitute an object highly likely to bring about a dangerous situation to the body when used as a tool for an act of violence.

2. Grill

This was a case in which a suspect who threw a meat grill was found guilty of special assault.

Although the victim was not struck directly by the grill, the court stated that "considering that the suspect threw the grill with enough force that it could reach the victim, and considering the shape and material of the grill, the suspect's conduct was such as to make the victim or a third party feel a threat to the body," and, regarding the grill as a dangerous object, it issued a guilty verdict.

As a strategy to defend against punishment for special assault, the attorney first argued that, although the client did raise the baseball bat, he never swung it at the victims, struck them, or hit them.

The client did throw the baseball bat to the floor out of anger, but did not throw it toward the victims.

To defend against punishment for special assault, the attorney in charge argued that the victims' report was presumed to have been made with malicious intent.

At the time, the victims, namely the child and the wife, were in serious conflict with the client.

The child had repeatedly urged the client's wife, who was the child's mother, to divorce the client, and had disregarded the client on every occasion.

In addition, when the victims left the house, they took with them all of the client's expensive electronic devices, various insurance policies, and securities.

The attorney in charge argued that the victims clearly intended to provoke the client's anger, falsely create evidence of assault, file a criminal complaint together with a divorce lawsuit, and obtain settlement money and consolation money from the client.