[Exclusive] How not guilty verdict is delaying treatment of US student's mental illness

An American exchange student acquitted of minor offenses committed during an acute psychiatric episode remains unable to leave South Korea while prosecutors appeal the verdict, delaying his return home for treatment, according to his lawyer.

The case involved an attempted entry into a dental office, the theft of delivered goods and damage to a pair of glasses, with losses totaling 232,400 won ($174).

The student, a US national in his 20s, had been studying at Jeonbuk National University on a D-2-6 exchange student visa.

On June 22, shortly before he was scheduled to leave Korea, he suffered an acute psychiatric episode while in Seoul late at night.

During the episode, he attempted to enter a dental office, took goods worth 102,400 won that had been delivered to the building and damaged glasses belonging to the building’s caretaker valued at 130,000 won.

Prosecutors indicted him on charges of attempted unlawful entry, theft and property damage, and later sought a two-month prison sentence. A court issued a detention warrant, citing concerns he could leave the country.

The student’s family said Korean authorities did not notify them of his detention. They learned what had happened only after he failed to return home as scheduled and they filed a missing person report with Korean police.

By the time the student's family located him, he had already spent about a month in detention — half the prison term prosecutors later requested. He was subsequently released on bail.

The Seoul Central District Court acquitted him in August, finding that his psychiatric condition had left him without the capacity to be held criminally responsible for his actions.

Although the court did not commission a psychiatric evaluation, it cited Supreme Court precedents holding that a defendant’s mental state may be determined from factors including conduct in court, other evidence and medical and family history.

Before the ruling, the student reached a settlement with one of the two affected parties and deposited compensation for the other through Korea’s criminal deposit system.

Prosecutors appealed the acquittal. The student remains unable to return to the US while the case proceeds, according to his attorney.

The Korean justice system routinely encourages parties to reach a settlement concerning damages outside of court, even in noncivil cases. Prosecutors are also typically able to appeal cases based on either an unsatisfactory verdict or sentence.

Soma Law Group attorney Yoon Yeo-hyun, who represents the student, said detention was unusual for a defendant facing an offense of comparable severity, but that foreign nationals were more readily detained in practice.

“In cases involving foreign nationals, their residence is often considered unstable and they are seen as posing a greater flight risk,” Yoon said. “That can result in detention even in relatively minor criminal cases such as this one.”

The disadvantages can be particularly acute for foreign defendants who are alone in Korea, he said. Unlike defendants with family members or a sufficient support network in the country, they may struggle to obtain outside assistance immediately after being detained.

Language barriers can make it challenging for foreign defendants to present their circumstances during the early stages of detention proceedings, even when interpreters and court-appointed counsel are available, Yoon said.

The student’s immigration status further complicates the case.

The student's visa expired while he was detained, without either him or his family realizing it, according to Yoon. His authorized period of stay was not extended after his release on bail, resulting in an administrative fine.

Yoon said the combination of criminal proceedings and immigration rules can impose additional consequences on foreign defendants even when they are ultimately acquitted.

The student’s family says he needs to return to the US for psychiatric treatment, but cannot leave Korea while the appeal remains pending.

“He is detained in Korea not because he was convicted, but because he was acquitted,” his father told The Korea Herald, saying his son had no home in Korea and lacked access to the psychiatric treatment he urgently needed.

The father traveled to Korea before his son was released on bail and has remained with him since. Yoon said he had put his work on hold because no one else was available to care for his son.

The student has also been unable to obtain adequate psychiatric treatment because the care he needs is not covered by his health insurance in Korea, according to Yoon.

Yoon said the case illustrates a paradox confronting some foreign defendants. In practice, accepting a conviction can provide a quicker route home than being acquitted.

Because prosecutors frequently appeal acquittals, a defendant with no ties to Korea may have to remain in the country while the appeal is heard.

By contrast, accepting guilt and receiving a suspended sentence for a relatively minor offense could allow the person to leave sooner, even through deportation, Yoon said.

“From the foreign defendant’s perspective, it essentially means that admitting guilt and being deported from Korea becomes the quickest way to go home,” he said.

Legal experts questioned the decision to appeal, saying it appeared inconsistent with recent efforts to curb routine challenges to acquittals.

“An appeal of an acquittal cannot automatically be criticized as excessive, but this decision does run counter to the trend of trying to avoid indiscriminate appeals,” said Choi Jung-kyu, an attorney at Wongok Law Offices who specializes in appeals.

Prosecutors have typically appealed first-instance acquittals as a matter of course. In June, however, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office began considering revisions to its internal guidelines that would require proposed appeals of full first-instance acquittals to be reviewed by a committee including outside experts.

The draft guidelines would also allow prosecutors to refrain from appealing minor property cases when the need for punishment is limited, even if victims still seek punishment or have not been fully compensated.

The initiative followed criticism from President Lee Jae Myung, who accused prosecutors of bringing unwarranted cases and routinely appealing acquittals, prolonging the financial and emotional burden on defendants.