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 on the passenger's side. Mr Jung took up a position seated directly behind the front passenger's seat.
At 1.25pm, Ms Moon entered the van and took up a position in the front passenger seat. In the course of the next five and a half minutes, Mr Jung strangled Ms Moon with a telephone charger cord. She died sitting in the front seat of Mr Jung's van.
Mr Jung then drove to Blaxland Riverside Park where he destroyed Ms Moon's mobile phone. From there he drove to Bunnings Warehouse at Lidcombe and purchased a shovel. Mr Jung drove to the Royal National Park but ultimately drove to his home at Homebush West with Ms Moon's body still in his van. It remained there overnight. In the early hours of the following day, Mr Jung returned to Blaxland Riverside Park where he buried Ms Moon's body in a grave that he dug near a tree and out of view. Mr Jung then went to work.
On 10 March 2021, Ms Moon was reported missing by her family. Mr Jung was spoken to by police by telephone on 16 March 2021 following analysis of CCTV footage of the Rawson Street carpark. Mr Jung attended the Eastwood Police Station the following day and gave an exculpatory story. He gave another story to the police on 18 March 2021. At about 12.50am on Friday 19 March 2021, police found Mr Jung in his van in the Silverwater area with a self-inflicted cut to his left wrist. He was taken to Westmead Hospital for treatment. At about 10.30am that day, while still in hospital, Mr Jung told the police that he met Ms Moon on 8 March 2021 at the Epping carpark and then drove her to a KFC outlet in Melrose Park where they had an argument. He told the police that Ms Moon got out of his van and refused his offer to drive her back to Epping. He told police that that was the last time he saw her.
However, in the early morning of Saturday 20 March 2021, Mr Jung told his wife that he had killed Ms Moon in his van on 8 March 2021. He apologised to his family and asked to be driven to the police station so that he could confess to that crime. Mr Jung gave an electronically recorded interview at the Eastwood Police Station on that day.
Mr Jung told the police that he had known Ms Moon for about nine years during which time they became close and started an affair. He said that Ms Moon kept asking him to divorce his wife and live with her and that she threatened to tell his family about their relationship. Mr Jung said that on 7 March 2021, Ms Moon demanded money from him and said that if he did not pay her she would come to his house and expose their affair. Mr Jung told the police that he was angry and infuriated by her threats and killed her so that his family would not find out. Mr Jung said, "we were having a discussion at a car park" and "I became angry while we were talking and I strangled her." He also told the police that Ms Moon had demanded that he bring $5,000 or she would expose him to his family. Mr Jung said he was "too angry" and:
"It was because she was threatening me in a preposterous way while I was in that angry state. It was on impulse. Without me realising it, I think I felt the urge to just kill her."
The one issue in dispute relates to whether Mr Jung strangled Ms Moon while he was seated in the van behind her or in the driver's seat next to her. The Crown accepts that it must prove the asserted fact beyond reasonable doubt upon the basis that it is said to be adverse to Mr Jung. The only direct evidence touching the issue arises from CCTV footage of the stationary van in the Coles carpark which provides some vision of the internal area of the van. That material is of limited assistance.
However, the Crown contends that an inference that Mr Jung strangled Ms Moon from behind her arises from the following circumstances. On 20 March 2021, Mr Jung told the police that he had moved from the driver's seat to the rear passenger seat without getting out of the vehicle in order to rest while waiting for Ms Moon to arrive because he was tired and stressed. When confronted with the CCTV footage, he accepted that he had in fact walked around to the back of his van.
In this regard, the CCTV footage shows that from about 1.08.10pm, Mr Jung got out of the driver's seat, walked to the back of the van, entered the vehicle through the rear passenger side and sat directly behind the front passenger seat. He told the police he reclined the back passenger seat. That is wrong because the rear seat is a bench seat with no capacity to recline. Some 16 minutes later, at 1.24.37pm, Ms Moon comes into view from behind the van and enters it through the front passenger door at 1.24.50pm.
The Crown contends that Mr Jung's actions in entering the back of the van and sitting directly behind the front passenger seat using the sliding passenger side rear door, rather than sliding the driver's side back door, is not consistent with Mr Jung's account of being tired and wanting to rest but rather with having decided that he would kill Ms Moon. He placed himself in a position where, seated directly behind her, he would have the advantage of surprise and be better placed to effect a strangulation with the charger cord. The CCTV material suggests that there is no discernible indication of Mr Jung moving from the rear seat into the driver's seat until 1.29.30pm, about one minute before he drives off.
Finally, the Crown contends that Mr Jung's own words support the proposition that Ms Moon was strangled from behind. He said to the police:
"I didn't even see her face. I couldn't see her face … I couldn't see her. Perhaps I saw her, but whatever it is I just can't remember."
I do not consider resolution of this factual dispute to be a matter of particular significance. That is for the following reasons. I find that Ms Moon was strangled by Mr Jung with an intention to kill her. Whether this occurred from beside her or behind her, it would necessarily have required a relatively prolonged exertion of force to her throat with the telephone charger cord. That is not consistent with some different non-lethal intention such as choking her to the point of unconsciousness but not death.
To the extent that Mr Jung's position in the vehicle informs his level of planning, it may be thought that if he had positioned himself in the rear of the van in anticipation of Ms Moon's arrival, that would be indicative of a plan to kill her, as opposed to a spontaneous decision to do so only after she arrived. On Mr Jung's account, he "just went crazy". However, Mr Jung told the police on 20 March 2021, "without me realising it, I think I felt the urge to just kill her". By the time Mr Jung was talking to Dr Ellis on 29 April 2022, Mr Jung recalled that he thought "this woman shouldn't be allowed to live".
Mr Jung also told the police that his motive for killing Ms Moon was to prevent her from exposing their extra-marital affair. He said, "the reason I killed her was not to let the family know. That's why I killed her." The Crown has submitted that it does not accept Mr Jung's claim that Ms Moon was demanding money from him as the price of her remaining silent.
In my opinion, it is highly likely from the fact that Mr Jung positioned himself in the rear of his van behind the front passenger seat and that Ms Moon was strangled very shortly after she arrived, that Mr Jung planned to kill her before she entered the van and that he did not only form that intention after her arrival or as the result of some demand or threat made by Ms Moon concerning the revelation of their affair. However, despite that degree of likelihood, it is not possible to be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence does not reveal much at all about the nature and extent of the relationship between Mr Jung and Ms Moon other than in the most general terms. In particular, the evidence does not speak to the question of whether their relationship had become strained, or encountered difficulties or whether the prospect of it ending had been discussed. However, in the light of Mr Jung's varying descriptions of what took place in the van, I am particularly cynical about his statements either that Ms Moon had threatened to expose their affair at all or that she had demanded money from him in order to remain silent. It is important to recognise those related suggestions, for which Mr Jung is the only source, as a form of victim blaming as if to explain and thereby minimise Mr Jung's culpability.
There can be no reasonable doubt that Mr Jung killed Ms Moon in a violent act of uncontrollable passion. Unless Mr Jung were able to suggest that he had an available defence of provocation, which he does not, the reason why he acted as he did in killing Ms Moon is of marginal relevance. The act causing death was, as the Crown contends, committed in an impulsive state of anger. The cause of the anger or loss of self-control is, in the circumstances of this case, neither capable of demonstration beyond reasonable doubt nor of particular significance in any event. Nothing in the evidence before me limits or modifies Mr Jung's culpability for the death.
In my view, this crime falls within the middle of the range of objective seriousness for offences of this kind.
[2]
Criminal record
Mr Jung has no criminal history or convictions of any kind. He is a person of prior good character. The several references tendered on his behalf speak in detail to matters that support that conclusion.
[3]
Remorse
I also accept that Mr Jung is remorseful. Whereas he initially tried to cover up his crime, including the clumsy attempt secretly to dispose of Ms Moon's body, as well as other lies and his expressed concern about the impact of his crime upon himself and his own family, Mr Jung ultimately came to the point of acknowledging the effect of what he did upon Ms Moon's family. For example, Mr Jung said this to the police on 20 March 2021:
"It dawned on me that not only myself but also my family will suffer if I lie any further. That's why I came ... I did something wrong. I don't know why I did it. I was so angry. That's why I did it. I regret it so much now. I could keep lying and avoid getting caught. But I came to a conclusion that that's not the way to go. I have to come here to take the responsibility of the crime that I committed … I feel most sorry for my family. I am also sorry for the other family."
In addition, Mr Jung told Dr Ellis that he deeply regrets his decision and his behaviour in killing Ms Moon. He said to Dr Ellis, "How much suffering to the victim's family there is and how greater over time this will be." Mr Jung told Dr Ellis as well that he no longer believed that Ms Moon was being unreasonable to him and that the responsibility was entirely on him for having started the affair and reacting as he did when he felt pressure to continue it. Mr Jung's wife also deposed to the fact that when Mr Jung went into custody he told her that he prayed for Ms Moon's family and that he regularly told her how sorry he is and how hard it must be for Ms Moon's family. Dr Ellis and Mr Jung's wife were not required for cross-examination. Conversely, Mr Jung did not give evidence at the sentencing proceedings. Mr Jung assisted the investigation and revealed the location of Ms Moon's body, a matter that can be taken into account in his favour.
[4]
Prospects of rehabilitation
I also consider that Mr Jung's risk of reoffending is small and that his prospects of rehabilitation are good. Mr Jung's background is not associated with criminal conduct or acts of violence. Whatever may have been the tipping point that led Mr Jung to lose his self-control, it would appear clearly to have been caused by or arisen out of his relationship with Ms Moon. Mr Jung is now 56 and the reality is that he will be much older before he is released from gaol. I do not foresee the prospect that he would reoffend as at all likely.
[5]
Subjective matters
Subjectively, Mr Jung was born in South Korea in 1966. His father died when he was nine years old. He assumed the role of the oldest male following his father's death. His mother died when he was 20 years old. He took on the responsibility for his younger siblings. Mr Jung married his wife in 1993. They have a son aged 28 and a daughter aged 26.
Mr Jung completed military service in South Korea after finishing school. He worked in tool manufacturing in South Korea and China. He moved to Australia in 2010 and secured work in food importation and distribution. He would appear to have been a normally functioning member of the community until the commission of the present offence. This is clear from the several references tendered on Mr Jung's behalf from friends and family, who speak with one voice concerning their complete surprise upon learning that Mr Jung should have committed the subject offence.
[6]
Special circumstances
I am not certain of the extent of Mr Jung's command of English. The sentencing proceedings were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter. Mr Jung does not suffer from any significant psychiatric or psychological condition requiring treatment or medication. Although it was submitted on his behalf that I should find the existence of special circumstances that would warrant a variation of the statutory ratio, I am unable to agree with that submission. Mr Jung's lack of fluency in English may well contribute to difficulties communicating with other inmates and with his ability meaningfully to engage in custodial programmes. However, that should not be permitted to mask the fact that he has performed satisfactorily as a member of the community so far and ought to be able to do so similarly in the custodial environment.
[7]
Victim impact statement
I have had regard to the extent permissible to a statement read aloud to the Court by Ms Moon's daughter. It is obvious from her account, if it were not otherwise, that the death of her mother in the circumstances of this case has had a significant effect upon her for which it is not possible to be unsympathetic.
[8]
Punishment, retribution and deterrence
Although it is well-known, and it is for that reason strictly unnecessary to do so, I consider that the terms of s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 can usefully be included in these reasons:
3A Purposes of sentencing
The purposes for which a court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows--
(a) to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
(b) to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
(c) to protect the community from the offender,
(d) to promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
(e) to make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
(f) to denounce the conduct of the offender,
(g) to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.
It is uncontroversial that Mr Jung must be punished for his crime. He took the life of a woman who was both unsuspecting and undeserving of his brutality. Mr Jung's several expressions of shame acknowledge as much.
It is also important to impose a sentence that communicates the disapprobation with which offences such as this are to be regarded and punished. I understand the argument that crimes of passion spontaneously committed are not a sound vehicle for general deterrence. That is not to say, however, that a convenient surrender to uncontrollable rage should not be seen for what it is and suitably denounced.
I am not of the view that specific deterrence is necessary in this case. My reasoning, already exposed, suggests that Mr Jung is highly unlikely, for any number of reasons, ever to reoffend and he does not need to be reminded further of that fact.
[9]
Sentence
Chulsoo Jung, I sentence you 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.
Finally, in compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, I note that the provisions of that Act have potential application to Mr Jung. His solicitor may be expected to provide him with further information about that.
[10]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 14 October 2022