Why did Kim So-young drug men?... Looking at the 108-page judgment [True Story]

[Financial News] "It appears the defendant attempted to obtain food or financial gain by exploiting the situation where the victims accepted his demands."
This is an excerpt from the first-instance judgment issued on the 27th of last month by the 14th Criminal Division of the Seoul Northern District Court (Presiding Judge Oh Byung-hee), which sentenced Kim So-young (20), the defendant in the 'Gangbuk Motel Murder Case' who was arrested and indicted on charges of murder, special injury, and violation of the Narcotics Control Act, to life imprisonment. The court pointed out that Kim's attempt to obtain economic benefits from the victims was one of the motives for the crime. However, looking at the 108-page judgment, it was difficult to fully explain the background of the crime solely through Kim's actions of demanding money or food from the victims. The court examined not only her actions at the time of the crime but also the process of how she formed relationships with the victims, the circumstances leading to the repetition of the crime, her childhood upbringing and disposition, and even her perception of drugs. How did Kim explain her charges, and on what grounds did the court reject her claims? We followed the court's judgment contained in the ruling.

Ms. Kim claimed that she suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after being sexually assaulted by a man in the past, and that she subsequently used drugs to avoid unwanted sexual contact due to fear and wariness toward men. The court did not accept Ms. Kim’s claimed motive of "self-defense against sexual violence." First, the court found it difficult to accept the claim itself that she had been a victim of sexual assault. The court determined that, considering the circumstances of the incident as claimed by Ms. Kim and her subsequent behavior, it is difficult to conclude that actual sexual assault occurred, nor can it be said that she began suffering from PTSD as a result of that incident. Furthermore, the court pointed out that Ms. Kim used drugs to obtain food or financial benefits from victims and employed them as a means to easily subdue men.
Above all, Kim's explanation could not account for all the victims who were drugged. After securing the drugs, Kim met with victims A through F in succession; after several victims consumed the drugs and lost consciousness, E and F died. The court pointed out that Kim drugged victims C and D, causing them to lose consciousness, even though there was no evidence to suggest they had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with him. The court determined that it was difficult to explain such crimes solely based on Kim's claim that his actions were intended to prevent sexual offenses.
The same was true for the deceased E and F. At their first meeting, Kim first suggested going to a motel, but E did not immediately accept the offer and declined, saying they should talk slowly. After entering the motel, no circumstances were found to suggest that E suddenly attempted sexual contact against Kim's will. Likewise, there was no evidence that F attempted inappropriate sexual contact. Based on these findings, the court ruled that it was difficult to accept Kim's explanation that "self-defense against sexual violence" was the primary motive for the crime.

Food and money were repeatedly mentioned in the judgment. Based on a comprehensive analysis of conversations with the victims and behavior before and after the crime, the court determined that Kim's primary motive was "financial greed." Victim B testified that she spent up to over 2 million won a day while dating Kim, and Victim C also claimed to have spent approximately 1 million won over multiple meetings.
The specific methods used were also diverse. Kim had C order chicken worth 68,000 won, then administered drugs to cause C to lose consciousness, and the next day received a transfer of approximately 57,000 won under the pretext of taxi fare. After D collapsed, Kim also unlocked the mobile phone using a fingerprint and transferred 55,000 won to his own account. The court used the fact that such actions of demanding food or money from the victim and subduing the victim with drugs were repeated as grounds for determining the motive for the crime.
The court also focused on the characteristics of the motel where the crime took place. It determined that the fact that the space was suitable for sexual intercourse created a situation where the victims were likely to accept Kim's demands, and concluded that Kim exploited this to obtain food or financial gain. The judgment also included an instance where Kim ordered chicken worth 120,000 won at the motel, which was an excessive amount for two people.

However, there were aspects of Kim's crimes that were difficult to explain solely by financial gain. The court pointed out that although Kim could have obtained greater economic benefits by maintaining long-term relationships with the victims, she used drugs to render them unconscious and administered excessive amounts of medication to some victims, leading to their deaths and subsequent abandonment. The court also determined that the fact that she used drugs even when the potential economic gain was not significant was another circumstance difficult to explain by financial motives alone.
The court determined that a complex interplay of factors contributed to these behaviors, including excessive wariness toward men, a tendency to avoid problematic situations, and personality disorder characteristics such as an inability to empathize with the harm suffered by others. In making this judgment, the court also considered the opinions of psychological analysts from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office of the Republic of Korea (SPO) who analyzed Kim's psychological tests and crime-related behavior. The analysts identified the motives and behavioral characteristics of the crime by analyzing Kim's cognitive and personality traits as well as her interpersonal relationship style. They concluded that Kim perceived men as "negative and threatening targets" on one hand, and as "means" to obtain economic gain on the other. It was also revealed that she exhibited a tendency to retaliate against or attack those who had caused her discomfort or dissatisfaction.
The court examined Ms. Kim’s upbringing as the background for the formation of this wariness toward men. It was found that Ms. Kim grew up in a household where her intoxicated biological father verbally abused and physically assaulted the family, and she witnessed not only herself but also her biological mother and older sister being subjected to violence. The court determined that these experiences likely left Ms. Kim, as an adult, with negative emotions such as fear and aversion toward her biological father.
In particular, one expert investigative advisor analyzed that, based on an examination of Kim’s upbringing and interpersonal characteristics, there is a possibility that Kim developed a generalized wariness toward men. Noting the possibility that Kim’s emotions were closer to fear than to active aversion or aggression, the advisor suggested that aggression may have manifested in a manner of avoiding or eliminating situations that caused her to feel threatened or uncomfortable. Based on a comprehensive analysis of these factors, the court examined the possibility that fear and wariness toward men, a tendency to avoid problematic situations, and personality disorder characteristics had a complex influence on the crime.
An underprivileged upbringing itself is not the cause of a crime or a justification for the offense. The court also did not conclude that this was the direct cause of the crime. However, it examined how the fear and vigilance formed during Ms. Kim's upbringing influenced her interpersonal relationships and behavior patterns after she became an adult. It assessed not only the behavior at the time of the crime but also the background that shaped that behavior.

A particularly notable aspect of the judgment is the assessment of the second victim, F. Generally, if a person administers drugs to another victim using the same method while knowing of the previous victim's death, there is room to view this as an increased intent to kill. The court also explained that Kim's intent regarding F was "somewhat intensified" compared to that of E. However, it did not recognize definitive intent.
The reason lay in the investigation process. When the investigative agency first summoned Ms. Kim, they did not inform her of E's death, and she had no way to confirm that E had died until she was arrested. Therefore, the court determined that while Ms. Kim may have considered the possibility that E had already died when she met F, she was also likely aware of the possibility that E was alive. This point was considered a mitigating circumstance in her favor. While the court viewed both murders as premeditated crimes, it took into account in sentencing that the intent to kill was not definitive intent but rather dolus eventualis.

Another noteworthy point in the judgment is that Ms. Kim was not found guilty of charges against all victims. The court acquitted her of some of the charges of aggravated assault against Victim A. This was because, although A also lost consciousness after meeting Ms. Kim, no drug components were detected in A's body, and hair tests did not reveal benzodiazepine-type substances found in other victims. Since the detection of drugs can vary depending on the time of administration or testing, the possibility of drug administration cannot be completely ruled out solely by the fact that no components were detected in tests. However, the court ruled that there was insufficient objective evidence to conclude that drugs were actually administered to A. Rather than convicting Ms. Kim of the charges based solely on the crimes against other victims or surrounding circumstances, the court determined guilt or innocence by assessing whether there was sufficient evidence.

This case will be retried in the appellate court following appeals from both sides. In the appeal, the key issues are expected to be the degree of Kim's intent to kill, the motive for the crime, and whether charges against individual victims will be admitted. Previously, the court considered the fact that the intent to kill at the time of the crime was limited to dolus eventualis as a favorable factor, while taking into account the fact that she systematically prepared drugs to repeat the crime and caused the deaths of two victims as an unfavorable factor. In particular, attention is focused on how the appellate court will determine whether there is a need to impose the death penalty, given that the first-instance court sentenced her to life imprisonment despite the prosecution seeking the death penalty.
[email protected] Seo Ji-yoon Reporter