Court says Jang Yoon-gi should never go free. Can it bar parole?

Korean law allows parole after 20 years for 'life imprisonment,' with release decided by the Justice Ministry

A Korean court called for a convicted killer to spend the rest of his life behind bars — but lacks the legal authority to exclude the possibility of parole.

The Gwangju District Court on Wednesday sentenced Jang Yoon-gi, 23, to life imprisonment for killing a 16-year-old student after attempting to sexually assault her.

Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, which the victim’s family had also demanded.

In explaining its decision, the court noted that Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997 and is regarded as a de facto abolitionist state. However, the judges explicitly stated that Jang should never be granted parole during his lifetime.

They emphasized that the life sentence was intended to “permanently isolate him from society and make him repent for the rest of his life through the suffering of imprisonment,” and did not anticipate “any leniency at the sentence enforcement stage.”

Yet that intention cannot become a binding restriction under current law, which does not allow courts to impose life imprisonment without parole.

Can a prisoner serving life be released?

Yes, but release is not automatic.

Under the Criminal Act, prisoners serving life sentences may be granted parole after 20 years if they meet requirements concerning conduct and demonstrated remorse.

Twenty years is the statutory minimum before parole can be granted, not a release date. A prisoner may remain incarcerated for decades beyond that point, or for the rest of their life.

For Jang, the law leaves the possibility of parole open despite the judges’ stated intention that he remain imprisoned until death.

Who decides on parole?

The Justice Ministry, rather than the sentencing court, decides whether to grant parole.

Cases undergo review by the Parole Review Committee, and release requires the justice minister’s approval.

The distinction is between the court’s authority to impose a life sentence and the ministry’s authority to decide whether a prisoner qualifies for conditional release. The judges’ opposition to parole does not remove that second decision from the ministry.

How does Korea differ from other jurisdictions?

Korea retains the death penalty in law but has not carried out an execution since 1997. Its life sentences allow for the possibility of parole once the statutory requirements are met.

Other jurisdictions allow judges to impose sentences that exclude parole. The US federal system allows life imprisonment without parole. In England and Wales, courts can impose whole life orders, under which prisoners remain incarcerated for life except in exceptional compassionate circumstances.

Has Korea tried to introduce life without parole?

In 2023, then-Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon backed legislation allowing courts to distinguish between life sentences with and without the possibility of parole.

When the amendment passed the Cabinet that October, Han said it was necessary to “consider the suffering of victims and their families and to protect law-abiding citizens.”

The government submitted the bill to the National Assembly on Oct. 31, 2023. However, it did not pass before the 21st Assembly’s term ended in May 2024 and was automatically scrapped.

Why was the proposal controversial?

The proposal prompted debate over fundamental rights, rehabilitation and whether excluding parole would deter crime.

Lawyers for a Democratic Society, known locally as Minbyun, and other civic groups argued in 2023 that life imprisonment without parole would violate the constitutional value of human dignity and could not be justified on criminal policy grounds.

Supporters argued that courts should be able to permanently exclude parole for the most serious offenders, citing public protection and the suffering of victims and their families.

After Wednesday’s sentencing, the victim’s parents renewed their call for legislation allowing life imprisonment without parole — the restriction the judges endorsed for Jang but could not impose under existing law.