R v Jung - [2022] NSWSC 1262

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jung [2022] NSWSC 1262
Hearing dates: 16 September 2022
Date of orders: 14 October 2022
Decision date: 14 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 years commencing on 20 March 2021 and expiring on 19 March 2039 with a non-parole period of 13 years and 6 months expiring on 19 September 2034.

Catchwords:
Sentence – murder – Korean aged 56 at time of sentence – guilty plea at first opportunity – where offender strangled younger woman with whom he was having an affair – whether planned attack or spontaneous loss of control – no prior criminal record – demonstrated remorse – general deterrence – no need for specific deterrence – unlikely to reoffend – good prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Chulsoo Jung (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Dodds (Crown)
M Avenell SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid (NSW) (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/79047
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Chulsoo Jung pleaded guilty in the Local Court at Central on 1 February 2022 to the murder of Min Sook Moon at Epping on 8 March 2021. Mr Jung is now to be sentenced for that offence. The plea of guilty was offered at the earliest opportunity and Mr Jung is entitled to a discount on sentence of 25 percent.
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. There is also a standard non-parole period which, in the circumstances of this case, is twenty years. The Crown contends that this matter should be regarded as a particularly serious instance of the crime of murder but does not submit that a life sentence should be imposed.
Mr Jung is to be sentenced upon the basis of agreed facts. Subject to one matter about which there is disagreement, those facts are as follows.
Min Sook Moon operated a family owned Korean grocery store in Epping where she worked daily with her husband, her nephew and her nephew’s wife. Ms Moon was 49 years old when she was killed by Mr Jung. He met Ms Moon in the course of his work selling and delivering predominantly Korean food items. Mr Jung delivered to Ms Moon’s Epping store approximately once a week.
Mr Jung first met Ms Moon in that capacity about nine years before her death. They eventually entered into an intimate relationship which had been ongoing for more than three years by March 2021.
On 8 March 2021, Mr Jung drove his work van from Silverwater North to Rawson Street, Epping. He arrived at about 1.07pm and parked adjacent to a Coles Supermarket where he had arranged to meet Ms Moon. Before she arrived, Mr Jung left the driver’s seat of the van and entered the rear through a sliding door…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Jung

Details

AGLC: R v Jung [2022] NSWSC 1262
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1262
Decision Date: 14 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a Korean national who pleaded guilty to the murder of a younger woman with whom he was having an affair. The offender strangled the victim, leading to her death. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering various factors such as the nature of the crime, the offender's background, and the potential for rehabilitation. The central legal issue was whether the attack was premeditated or a spontaneous loss of control, and how this affected the severity of the sentence. Additionally, the court had to balance the need for general deterrence against the offender's remorse and potential for rehabilitation.

The court found that the attack, while violent, did not appear to be premeditated. The offender, aged 56 at the time of sentencing, had no prior criminal record and showed genuine remorse for his actions. The court considered the offender's age, lack of a criminal history, and the prospects of rehabilitation when determining the sentence. The court held that general deterrence was important, but given the offender's remorse and the likelihood of rehabilitation, specific deterrence was not necessary. The court also noted that the offender was unlikely to reoffend.

The court ultimately decided on a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime while also considering the offender's remorse, age, and potential for rehabilitation. The offender was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific conditions aimed at facilitating his rehabilitation. The court's decision was influenced by the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system, while also providing an opportunity for the offender to reform. The court emphasised the importance of balancing punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, particularly in cases where the offender demonstrates remorse and has a low risk of reoffending.

Orders