South Korean Woman Jailed For Biting Off Attacker's Tongue Gets Retrial After 60 Years

A South Korean court has reopened the case of a woman who was sentenced in 1965 after defending herself against a sexual assault. The ruling, which grants the now 78-year-old Choi Mal-ja a retrial, has reignited discussions on justice for victims of sexual violence in the country.

The Busan High Court's decision comes after years of legal efforts by Choi, who has repeatedly sought to overturn the conviction she received as an 18-year-old.

In 1964, Choi was assaulted near her home by a 21-year-old man, identified by his surname, Noh. In an act of self-defence, she bit off 1.5 cm of his tongue, ending the attack.

Despite her claims of acting to protect herself, Choi was convicted of aggravated bodily harm and sentenced to 10 months in prison, with the sentence suspended for two years. Meanwhile, her assailant received a six-month jail term, also suspended for two years.

In a 2020 interview with The Korea Herald, Choi recalled how she was pressured into accepting her sentence. "I said I did nothing wrong, and [the prosecutor] said if I didn't comply, I would have to spend the rest of my life in jail," she said

She also stated that her family spent their life savings on a settlement with Noh, who continued to harass them and even broke into their home, threatening her and her sister with a knife.

Choi's pursuit of justice gained momentum in the 2000s when she pursued higher education and recognised the injustice of her conviction. With the support of a women's rights group, she sought a retrial, but her initial requests were rejected due to insufficient evidence. 

The Supreme Court intervened, directing the Busan High Court to reassess the ruling.

In its latest verdict, the Busan High Court noted that Choi's testimony remained “specific and consistent” over the years. It also acknowledged concerns that she may have been unlawfully detained during the original investigation, violating the country's Criminal Procedure Act.

"There are enough grounds to believe that there had been unlawful arrest and detention without warrant," the court said.