(1) For the offence of aggravated common assault (CAN 2535/2024), you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, which sentence is to be wholly suspended upon you entering into a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months, with the additional condition that you be under the supervision of the Director-General only for the period deemed necessary by Director‑General for the purposes of engaging in such relationship counselling or anger management courses as the Director-General sees fit.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment and Punishment - Sentence - common assault (aggravated, family violence) - rolled up count of incident where offender kicked his wife in stomach and put his hands around her neck following argument about money - plea of guilty at trial - protection of victim and community - positive subjective circumstances with no prior convictions - wholly suspended sentence imposed

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 10

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26(2)

Family Violence Legislation Amendment Act 2022 (ACT)

1. Seok Min Maeng, on the morning of your trial upon more serious charges, you pleaded guilty to one rolled up count of aggravated common assault, incorporating a single incident in which you kicked your wife in the stomach and put your hands around her neck.
2. The offence of aggravated common assault carries a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26(2).
3. The offence is aggravated because it occurred in the context of family violence. The ACT Legislative Assembly introduced statutory aggravation of family violence offences in 2022 specifically for the purpose of providing guidance to the courts and the ACT community about the seriousness of offences occurring in the context of family violence: see the Family Violence Legislation Amendment Act 2022 (ACT).
4. The further relevant context is that the victim is a South Korean national who speaks very little English and, at the time of your offending, did not have a mobile phone on her to assist her with a call for help or interpreting. She had to flee the family home in bare feet to seek help as best she could from strangers. In short, she was in a very vulnerable position and must have been very stressed and frightened by your actions.
5. I accept that you were arguing at the time. However, your resort to physical violence lies squarely upon you.
6. I accept that there is some utilitarian value in the plea of guilty, albeit only on the day the trial commenced. Therefore, I intend to apply a 15 percent discount to the sentence I will impose.
7. It is evident from the material before me that you and your partner were arguing at the time of this offending about money. Specifically, your gambling had resulted in financial problems for you both. Whether or not you were both gambling together or you are solely to blame, the fact is that large amounts of money were lost at the casino and, on that day, the victim had had enough.
8. The argument escalated and you then lost control of your temper and assaulted your partner, which is described in the statement of agreed facts (Annexure A to these reasons). However, I make it clear that I accept, for the purpose of sentencing you, that the agreed facts are the basis on which you are to be sentenced.
9. I accept that you never intended to use a knife, even though your partner thought you were going to the kitchen to retrieve one because you said "I will kill you" to her as you walked to the kitchen.
10. Nevertheless, I consider that the threshold in s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) has been satisfied, having regard to the nature of your offending and the fact that it occurred in the context of family violence. You must understand, Mr Maeng, that the community - including your partner - is entitled to be protected from the risk of further harm from family violence offending. To ensure that it is brought home to you the seriousness with which this court regards family violence offending, I intend to impose a term of imprisonment.
11. I turn now to your personal circumstances. You are a 56-year-old man born in South Korea, who has spent the last 20+ years in New Zealand and Australia. You come to this court without any prior convictions. You have always held consistent employment in Australia as a painter and tiler. You and your partner were married in September 2022. I am told that you are both now cohabiting again and both of you wish to continue with your relationship. The fact that your partner has not provided a victim impact statement convinces me that I can accept that as a fact.
12. In all of the circumstances, I am persuaded that a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment is appropriate.
13. You have demonstrated a degree of insight into your behaviour, you have identified strategies to better manage similar situations in the future, and you have agreed to engage in recommended interventions to reduce any further potential risks.
14. I will impose a sentence of six months' imprisonment, reduced from eight months by approximately 15 percent and further reduced to take into account the 23 days you spent in custody. That sentence is to be wholly suspended upon you entering a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months, with the additional condition that you be under the supervision of the Director‑General for the purposes of and for the period as deemed necessary by the Director‑General for you to engage in relationship counselling or anger management courses.

(1) For the offence of aggravated common assault (CAN 2535/2024), you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, which sentence is to be wholly suspended upon you entering into a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months, with the additional condition that you be under the supervision of the Director-General only for the period deemed necessary by Director‑General for the purposes of engaging in such relationship counselling or anger management courses as the Director-General sees fit.

I certify that the preceding fifteen [15] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Kelly.

1. Seok Min Maeng ('the accused') and [redacted] ('the complainant') have been intimate partners since June 2022 and were married in September 2022. On 27 February 2024, the couple was residing at their home at [redacted] with the complainant's two children.
2. Both the accused and the complainant are of South Korean heritage and speak Korean as their primary language.
3. At about 10:50 AM on 27 February 2024, the complainant and accused were at home, sitting in the kitchen area. The children were at school at this time.
4. The accused told the complainant that he wanted to go to the casino later in the week, and that he had withdrawn money to use at the casino. The money was cash which the complainant had put aside when she first arrived from South Korea.
5. An argument ensued between the complainant and accused about the accused's gambling habits as the money was needed for visa applications.
6. The complainant was concerned as the accused had already lost approximately $20,000 at the casino as a result of his gambling. The complainant was angry with the defendant because she felt that their savings were running out.
7. The complainant told the accused that she did not want him to go to the casino, and that he could not go again until he paid her back the money that he had lost. The complainant told the accused that she would not be giving him any further money, and that she wanted to divorce him due to his gambling.

1. The accused became angry and placed his two hands around the front of the complainant's neck, with his thumbs at the bottom of her neck and fingers wrapped around the side of her neck.
2. The accused told the complainant that he would kill her, and that they should die together. The complainant gripped the accused's hands to try and get his hands off her neck. The complainant felt shocked, however did not struggle to breathe during the incident. The complainant then managed to force the accused's hands off her neck.
3. The accused then kicked the complainant with his leg in the stomach. The complainant felt his foot on the area of her upper abdomen. The complainant fell toward the entrance door to the house as a result of the kick. She struggled to breathe after being kicked in the stomach.
4. The accused then entered the kitchen and the complainant believed he was going to retrieve a knife. He told the complainant 'I will kill you' as he walked towards the kitchen. The accused looked furious, the complainant felt scared and believed that the accused would harm or kill her, as she had just been assaulted.
5. The prosecution accepts that it cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that the threat to kill the complainant was made in circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe the threat to kill her would be carried out.
6. The complainant got up from the floor and escaped through the front door. She ran to a nearby neighbour's house and attempted to obtain assistance, but no one was present at the house. She then ran to another residence. [The resident] lived at the house with her partner and son. The complainant rang the doorbell and knocked on the door.
7. [The resident's] son opened the door, and upon seeing the complainant, did not know how to respond. The complainant was crying, appeared frightened, was not wearing shoes, and asked repeatedly for the occupants of the home to ring the police.
8. The complainant spoke little English and gestured by placing her hand around her neck to explain to [the resident] that she had been choked. [The resident] and the complainant stood at the doorway to [the resident's] home, and they noticed the accused's car drive past in the street behind them. [The resident] subsequently contacted 000 and requested police assistance.
9. Police attended [the resident's] home at approximately 11:10 AM. The complainant provided a version of events to police which was captured on body worn camera. Police observed the complainant to be distraught and crying upon describing the incident. Police observed red marks on one side of the complainant's neck.
10. The complainant was escorted back to her home to pick up some items of clothing, including shoes, and her mobile phone, which police had located inside the accused's vehicle upon arresting and searching him. The complainant noticed a text message from the accused informing her that he was going to use the money.
11. Police requested that the ACT Ambulance Service attend the property to assess the complainant for injuries and further medical treatment. She was escorted to North Canberra Hospital and assessed by medical staff.
12. Whilst at the hospital, the complainant participated in a Family Violence Evidence in Chief Interview, assisted by a Korean interpreter via the phone.
13. The defendant returned to his home that afternoon. Police later attended the accused's residence and conducted a search on a white Kia 4-wheel drive driven by the accused, registration [redacted]. Police located $4095 cash in a white envelope in the glove box.
14. The accused was placed under arrest, and whilst under arrest, was cautioned and advised that he would have the opportunity to participate in a record of interview. The accused made spontaneous utterances about having an argument with the complainant.
15. Whilst at the station and prior to any formal interview, the accused made spontaneous utterances to police that:
    • There had been an argument at home in which he and the complainant yelled at each other;
    • They had struggled;
    • The complainant threw an object at him, and he held his arms by his side in a tense form; and
    • That the complainant ran away.
16. The accused told police that they had been having disagreements about their financial affairs. The accused did not mention any disagreement about a casino.

1. The accused was conveyed to City Police Station and participated in a Digital Record of Interview, with the assistance of a Korean interpreter via the phone.
2. The accused told police that both he and the complainant regularly attended the casino, and that on the day in question, he had suggested that they go to the casino together again. He stated that they had attended the casino two weeks prior, and they had lost approximately $20,000 at the casino from a joint account.
3. The accused told police that his wife was angry as he had lost money once again at the casino and had not been working for the previous month. The accused then states that his wife said something about a divorce, that he never uses violence against her, that she has symptoms of depression and did not want to stay in Australia, and that he endured violence from the complainant as a result of those factors. He said that the complainant was upset and threw something at him, and that he formed a fist, gesturing to hit her, and she fled.
4. The accused told police that he was sure that they would not find any scarring or bruising on the complainant. He told police that he did not hit her or touch her body.
5. The accused was played the FVEICI taken with the complainant earlier that day. He denied the allegations put to him that he had kicked the complainant in the stomach, strangled her, or made any threats toward her with a knife.