//
[2025] NSWSC 1522
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-12-16
Harrison CJ at CL
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Yoo [2025] NSWSC 1522
Hearing dates: 27 November 2025
Date of orders: 16 December 2025
Decision date: 16 December 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Decision: For the murder of Min Kyung Cho, Hyun Soo Cho and BC sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Catchwords: CRIME – murder – murder of family – where offender murdered mother and child at his martial arts studio by strangulation – where father was fatally stabbed at home – where offending is captured on CCTV – where offender did not appear to give any thought to avoiding detection – where murders were planned and premeditated – where motivation for murders was to acquire a BMW vehicle and family money
SENTENCING – objective seriousness – where the objective seriousness of each offence needs to be considered individually – where objective seriousness of murders for all three of the victims is at the upper end
SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence – subjective circumstances – where it is submitted the offender’s difficult background affected his moral development – whether subjective circumstances should diminish the offender’s moral culpability
SENTENCING – plea of guilty – where offender pleaded guilty at the first opportunity in the Local Court – where offender is entitled to be considered for a discount of 25 percent – whether the offender should receive a discount for his plea of guilty
SENTENCING – life sentences – whether the murders attract sentences of life imprisonment or lengthy sentences of imprisonment – consideration of the four indicia in s 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 – where there were multiple murders as part of a single episode of criminality – whether the offender’s culpability is so extreme that community interest can only be met through a life sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21(1), 61(1)
Cases Cited: Adanguidi v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 404; (2006) 167 A Crim R 295
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
CC v R; R v CC [2021] NSWCCA 71
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292
R v Harris [2000] NSWSC 285; (2000) 111 A Crim R 415
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Miles [2002] NSWCCA 276
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Regina v Quill (a pseudonym) [2005] NSWCCA 4
Rogerson v R; McNamara v R [2021] NSWCCA 160
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Kwang Kyung Yoo (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
R Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)
File Number(s): 2024/67947
Publication restriction: Nil
HIS HONOUR: Kwang Kyung Yoo pleaded guilty in the Local Court at the first opportunity to the murder on 19 February 2024 of Min Kyung Cho, Hyun Soo Cho and BC. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. A standard non-parole period of 20 years applies in the case of Min Kyung Cho and Hyun Soo Cho who were adults. A standard non-parole period of 25 years applies in the case of BC who was a child.
The following facts for sentencing purposes are agreed.
Mr Yoo was born in South Korea in April 1974. He migrated to Australia in 1991 with his father and his sister. At the time of the events that give rise to these proceedings, Mr Yoo was living at Kezar Road, North Kellyville, with his wife and their two children aged 15 and 9. He and his wife were the owners and operators of a martial arts school, known as “Lion's Taekwondo and Martial Arts Academy”, located at 2a Daking Street, North Parramatta. They began the business in 2014. It had been located at North Parramatta since June 2018. Mr Yoo was the sole taekwondo instructor and was known to his students as "Master Lion."
Since 2017, Mr Yoo has also conducted taekwondo classes during school terms at Epping Boys High School.
Mr Yoo’s monthly rent for the North Parramatta studio was $8,584. At the time of the offences, he was one month behind in his payments. He owed $3,202.68 on a credit card. He and his wife owned a Toyota Camry.
The three deceased were a family unit living in a townhouse in Watkins Road, Baulkham Hills. They were:
Hyun Soo Cho, more commonly known as Steven Cho. He was born in South Korea in November 1984 and was aged 39 at the time of his death.
Min Kyung Cho. She was born in South Korea in November 1982 and was aged 41 at the time of her death.
BC. He was born in Sydney in May 2016 and was aged 7 at the time of his death.
In 1988, Mr Cho moved with his mother from Korea to Sydney to reunite with his father who had moved to Sydney a year earlier. A few years later, the family moved back to Korea before returning and settling in Sydney in 1998. In early 2000, shortly after she had finished high school in Korea, Ms Cho moved to Sydney to attend university. Her parents and her brother remained living in Korea. Around 2004, Mr and Ms Cho met in Sydney through the Korean Society, and began a relationship sometime after.
They married in Sydney on 19 March 2011.
The Cho family owned a white BMW X5 and a red Hyundai i20. The BMW was primarily driven by Ms Cho, while the Hyundai was primarily driven by Mr Cho. Mr Cho was a Senior Construction Estimator at Richard Crookes Construction at Artarmon. Ms Cho did not work outside the home and was the primary carer for their son. He had been a student at Mr Yoo’s taekwondo studio for about three years. Shortly before the offences, with the encouragement of Mr Yoo, BC began doing back-to-back classes on Monday nights in preparation for his black belt assessment.
Near the end of January 2024, Mr Yoo told his wife that Jessica, the principal of Epping Boys High School, had offered him more work there and had said that they would provide him with a BMW car. This was a lie.
At about 1.32pm on 8 February 2024, Mr Yoo drove into the townhouse complex where the Cho family lived. After doing so, he did a U-turn directly in front of the Cho's townhouse before driving away. At about 11.16am on 11 February 2024, he went back. He drove past the Cho's townhouse and further into the complex before leaving a short time later. At about 2.37pm on the same day, Ms Cho drove into the complex and into her garage. A short time later Mr Yoo returned but drove away soon after.
At about 8.26pm on 14 February 2024, Mr Yoo again drove his car into the complex, slowed down as he passed the Cho's property, before leaving. At about 9.14pm on 15 February 2024, Mr Yoo returned to the complex for a short time.
At about 8.00am on 19 February 2024, Mr Cho left his home and travelled by bus to his office at Artarmon. Ms Cho left home 10 minutes later and dropped BC at school. She came and went from the house for the rest of the morning.
At 12.06pm, Mr Yoo left home and was driven by his wife to the taekwondo studio at North Parramatta. His classes that day were to commence at 3pm and run until 8pm. During the drive to the studio, Mr Yoo told his wife that he was excited to be receiving the BMW from Jessica that day. He arrived at the taekwondo studio at 12.26pm.
Ms Cho picked up BC from school at about 2.40pm.
At 4.12pm, Ms Cho and BC left home in the BMW and drove to the taekwondo studio for BC's classes at 4.30pm and 5.30pm. Ms Cho parked out the front. There is a reception and cafe area at the front of the studio which leads into the mat room in the centre of the building. To one side of the mat room is a bathroom and to the other side is a gym area. At the rear of the mat room is a door that leads into a storeroom. Inside the storeroom, there is a door that leads into an office. At the relevant time, the premises had eight CCTV cameras in operation that covered the reception and cafe area, the mat room, the gym area and the office. There was no camera in the storeroom.
At 4.26pm, Ms Cho and BC entered the studio through the front door. BC walked into the mat room, while Ms Cho had a brief conversation with Mr Yoo at reception. Following their conversation, Ms Cho left the studio, and Mr Yoo walked into the mat room to commence the 4.30pm class. While the class was running, Ms Cho waited outside in her car.
At about 5.22pm, Ms Cho moved her car into the driveway of the studio. She re-entered the reception area. BC's first class had finished, and he briefly spoke to his mother before he returned to the mat room for his next class.
BC's second class finished at about 6.17pm and the students lined up in the reception area for ice blocks.
By 6.22pm, all the students and parents from the 5.30 class had left, except for Ms Cho and BC. At this point, Ms Cho followed Mr Yoo through the mat room and into the rear storeroom, while BC remained in the reception area.
Between 6.23pm and 6.50pm, Mr Yoo intentionally killed Ms Cho in the storeroom by compressing her neck. He eventually moved her body into the office. At around 6.30pm, the six students in Mr Yoo’s next class began to arrive. He usually greeted them at reception but did not do so on this occasion. The students ultimately walked into the mat room and started stretching while they waited for Mr Yoo. Some of them heard banging coming from the storeroom.
At about 6.43pm, Mr Yoo entered the office briefly, armed with a baseball bat. He immediately put it on the floor and then picked up a long metal pole. He then went back into the storeroom.
At about 6.44pm, Mr Yoo dragged Ms Cho's unresponsive body into the office. He moved over her and placed a metal pole across her throat. He then stood on the pole for about 20 seconds.
When he stepped off the pole, Mr Yoo compressed Ms Cho’s neck with his hands. He then placed a white pole across her throat and applied pressure for another few minutes.
At 6.48pm, Mr Yoo turned off the light and left the office. He walked out of the storeroom and into the mat room to commence his class. After greeting his students, he returned to the office carrying a black pole and turned on the lights. He briefly pushed the white pole onto Ms Cho's throat before using the black pole to do the same thing. He then reverted to the white pole and continued to apply pressure to her throat. At 6.51pm, he left the office and walked back into the mat room.
Mr Yoo walked back to the office at 6.52pm. He took possession of Ms Cho's mobile phone and tried to unlock it. He returned to the mat room and continued conducting the class. At 6.56pm, Mr Yoo went back to the storeroom, opened and closed the office door quickly and then returned to the mat room.
At 6.58pm, Mr Yoo walked into the reception area to check on BC. They had a brief conversation before he gave BC an ice block. At 7.00pm, Mr Yoo walked through the mat room and into the storeroom. He again opened and closed the office door quickly before walking back out to the mat room.
Over the next 15 to 20 minutes, Mr Yoo returned to the office several more times. At 7.19pm, he again checked on BC in reception and he gave him another ice block. At 7.23pm, Mr Yoo returned to the reception area, spoke briefly to BC, and then closed the front door.
The class moved from the taekwondo mats to the gym area at about 7.27pm. BC had entered the mat room by this time. One of the students asked him, "Why is the boy here?" Mr Yoo responded, "He's the son of my close friend. They were busy and asked me to look after their boy." He later said that BC's parents were coming to pick him up, but he didn't know when. At some point, Mr Yoo was heard reassuring BC that his mother would be back to pick him up soon.
At about 8.00pm, Mr Yoo led BC into the storeroom where he strangled him.
At 8.12pm, he went to the office and retrieved the white pole he had used on Ms Cho. He then immediately walked back into the storeroom and closed the door.
Mr Yoo left the storeroom and a short time later drove Ms Cho’s BMW out of the driveway before returning it to the same spot. At 8.22pm, he re-entered the studio and walked to the storeroom. At 8.25pm, he entered the office. After standing over Ms Cho's body for a short time, he picked up a blue ethernet cable and went back into the storeroom. He had by then put on a dark jacket with 'Nike Air' written on the front and the Nike logo on the left sleeve.
At 8.27pm, Mr Yoo entered the office carrying BC's body. He dropped him on the floor near the door. He pulled BC's body up several times using a cord that was wrapped around his neck. At 8.29pm, Mr Yoo dragged BC's body back into the storeroom. He turned on the office light and took Ms Cho's Apple watch off her wrist. He then walked out to reception before returning to the storeroom a short time later. At 8.48pm, Mr Yoo left the studio, locking the front door on the way out. He then drove to the Cho’s home in Ms Cho's car, taking her mobile phone with him.
Each of the murders was objectively very serious. Each involved an intention to kill as opposed to some possibly lesser intention to inflict serious injury. In the case of Ms Cho and BC, strangulation required prolonged restriction of each victim’s airways until death resulted. Mr Cho’s death involved the use of a bladed weapon.
The strangulation death of Ms Cho was also associated with several prolonged post mortem attempts to restrict or constrict her airways by the violent use of a metal bar or bars. Even though it would appear that Ms Cho was already dead when this occurred, this conduct is emblematic or redolent of the amount of force that Mr Yoo considered was required to ensure that Ms Cho was no longer alive even though she had already stopped moving and appeared to be lifeless. I am satisfied, however, that the use of such force did not for that reason inflict further suffering upon her. I am also satisfied that the use of iron bars in this way or the use of a knife in the case of the murder of Mr Cho were items that were available at the scene of the murders and had not required planning to acquire them.
Mr Yoo was a fit and strong martial artist who attacked Ms Cho and BC in an isolated area of his taekwondo studio. Mr Cho was killed in his home. BC was a highly vulnerable child of only seven years of age. Ms Cho was vulnerable by reason of her different size and strength.
The killing of BC involved an egregious breach of trust. He was a pupil in Mr Yoo’s martial arts academy and presumably looked to him for guidance as “Master Lion”.
I am also satisfied that the murders involved a premeditated plan to kill the victims. That emerges when one considers the following agreed facts.
Mr Yoo had told his wife in late January 2024 that he would be getting a BMW motor vehicle. There is no evidence that he was at that stage planning to obtain the Chos' BMW or that he proposed to do so by killing them. However, as earlier described, on 8, 11, 14 and 15 February 2024, Mr Yoo engaged in some kind of surveillance of the Cho's townhouse complex. I am satisfied that this demonstrated Mr Yoo’s interest in the BMW, even though this behaviour does not clarify or foreshadow precisely or even generally what it was that he intended to do.
Having regard to what Mr Yoo said to his wife on the afternoon of the day of the murders, I am satisfied that he had planned, by that time at least, to steal the Chos' BMW on that day. In light of what happened, I am satisfied that Mr Yoo planned to kill the Chos to obtain the vehicle.
Curiously, and on one view inexplicably, even though the plan appears to have been simply to kill each of the family members and take their vehicle, some of Mr Yoo’s activities were carried out in private areas of the studio that were under constant CCTV surveillance. There does not appear to have been any deliberate attempt by Mr Yoo to prevent some of what he did from being recorded.
“He said he had known the Cho family for several years because he was [BC’s] taekwondo teacher. He said they were a ‘great family’, and his feelings towards them did not change prior to the index offences. He could not explain the evidence suggesting he went to their property before the offences.
When asked about emails with ‘Jessica Schadel’, Mr Yoo said he was sending emails to himself so that his wife could see those emails and feel reassured that things would be okay – ‘I wanted to give her hope.’ However, over time ‘it became bigger and bigger, and I couldn’t stop. She was so happy.’ He said that students had heard about his degrees and achievements, and when they asked him about it, he felt he had to continue the lie.
He said that he ruminated on thoughts that he had been a ‘good person’ all his life and worked hard, yet he was under significant financial strain, whereas ‘bad people’ might get away with things and live easy lives. He described thinking – ‘You’ve been living your life as a good person for long enough. You can be a bad person and give your family whatever they want.’
He said that on the day of the offences, he saw the Cho family arrived for classes in their BMW car. He felt that he needed to take the car, because he had told his wife he would have a car like this. He said that he killed Ms Cho and [BC] to take the car, and that there was no other motivation at the time. After their deaths, Ms Cho’s phone rang, and he saw it was Mr Cho, so he went to the Cho family home and killed him.”
Dr Ellis described this conduct as “consistent with an emotive and simplistic fantasist motive.” It may seem on one view to be beyond the comprehension and understanding of ordinary people that such terrible and violent conduct could have been generated by Mr Yoo’s apparently entrenched envy of the success achieved by others of which success the Cho family was tragically and innocently representative. That was also the “explanation” provided by Mr Yoo to the Communities and Justice Risk Intervention Team not long after he was taken into custody following the murders. As bizarre as it may appear to be, there is no other suggested or posited reason given for what Mr Yoo did.
The Crown maintained that the allegedly simplistic character of this so-called motive should not be permitted to supplant or disguise real concerns about whether Mr Yoo remains dangerous or likely to repeat the behaviour, issues which the Crown submitted raise serious doubts about his prospects of rehabilitation. The Crown’s submission was to the effect that the extraordinarily enigmatic nature of Mr Yoo’s offending was itself a reason why no confident or comfortable predictions could ever be made about whether the same or similar offending might not be repeated.
Mr Yoo conceded that the present circumstances supported a finding that the objective seriousness of his offending is very high. I am unable to disagree with that assessment. I bear in mind that Mr Yoo has committed and is to be sentenced for three separate offences and that the objective seriousness of each needs to be considered individually.
I have in that respect had the considerable, albeit distressing, advantage of viewing the CCTV images from the taekwondo studio where Ms Cho and BC were killed. The contrast between the incredible ordinariness of the events there that preceded those murders and the deaths that were caused is stark. Neither Ms Cho nor her son had, or could possibly have had, any conceivable notion of the terrible fate that awaited them. They were each obviously deceived in the most cynical fashion by Mr Yoo’s mundane attention to the conduct of his business and lulled in those circumstances into what was clearly a sense that there was nothing about which they should have been concerned. Even though the specific acts causing death are not shown, it is evident that they followed in each case closely upon the otherwise unremarkable interactions between Mr Yoo and these two victims that preceded their murders.
The murder of Mr Cho is not similarly depicted. It is clear that Mr Yoo went to the Cho family home and fatally stabbed Mr Cho. As far as the evidence reveals, Mr Cho was unsuspecting and defenceless. The wounds that Mr Cho was able to inflict upon Mr Yoo in response to his violent attack would on Mr Yoo’s own account appear to be because Mr Yoo provided him with a knife for that purpose. As Mr Yoo told the Risk Intervention Team, Mr Cho died from the injuries Mr Yoo inflicted before he could cause any significant harm to Mr Yoo by way of self-defence.
Mr Yoo has no criminal history and led a law abiding and entirely unremarkable life until the commission of these offences.
The High Court in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 considered the question of disadvantaged and deprived backgrounds and some of the ways in which such a background might be relevant to sentencing. The passages at [37] and [40]-[43] are well known and need not be repeated.
It was submitted on his behalf that Mr Yoo’s background was disadvantaged by reason of early parental abandonment. His father was often absent working overseas. His mother left the family when he was ten years old, after which he was raised by his grandparents. Before she left, Mr Yoo was physically abused by his mother. The family experienced poverty and there were periods when food was scarce.
Mr Yoo grew up being exposed to ideas that emphasised the importance of external social markers of success. He felt the pressure of familial expectations about his success at school, and was subjected to physical punishment for inadequate performance.
It was not suggested that Mr Yoo’s background was profoundly deprived, or that there is a clear causal link between his background and the offending: neither is a prerequisite for the application of the Bugmy principles. However, it was submitted on Mr Yoo’s behalf that his relatively difficult background was likely to have affected his moral development. The possibly undue emphasis upon success or its appearance probably had some influence on the development of his irrational reasons for killing his victims. It was submitted that his childhood deprivation was sufficiently significant to provide for at least a modest reduction in his moral culpability.
So far as Mr Yoo’s mental condition is concerned, and despite the pervasive presence of a fantasy life, explained by Dr Ellis, there is no evidence that Mr Yoo suffered from a mental health impairment or personality disorder. It was submitted on Mr Yoo’s behalf that while he is not in these circumstances able to call upon any such condition by way of mitigation, he is correspondingly not burdened with a mental condition that might render him more likely to reoffend.
I accept that Mr Yoo had a less than perfect childhood. That is sadly the not uncommon experience of men and women who fall foul of the criminal law. Mr Yoo’s background reveals he felt burdened with the weight of parental, educational and cultural expectations that he would achieve and succeed at unrealistic levels and conform with unattainable standards. There is a redolence of these expectations in the level of envy that appears to have generated the very crimes for which he is to be sentenced.
I am not, however, satisfied that any of the matters that have been drawn to my attention in this context operate somehow to ameliorate or diminish Mr Yoo’s moral culpability. As sympathetic as one might be to the type of difficulties encountered by Mr Yoo in his developing years, they are not in my experience so extreme or so traumatic that they reduce Mr Yoo’s blameworthiness. I am sadly encouraged in this view by the fact that Mr Yoo’s ordeals are regrettably commonplace in modern Australian society as well as in the many countries from which large sections of the Australian population are drawn.
Unusually in my experience, but entirely appropriately, victim impact statements were read aloud to the court in both Korean and English. Having regard to the fact that the sentence proceedings attracted what I anticipate were members of the extended Cho family, as well as of the local Korean community more generally, the comprehensible publication of these sentiments to such an audience was important. That is particularly so as well for the reason that the proceedings were livestreamed internationally for the particular benefit of an audience of family members and others in Korea.
Necessarily in the nature of things, these statements were profoundly moving and characterised by modes of expression and spiritual allusions with distinct Korean cultural differences. They served to reflect the high degree of suffering that Mr Yoo’s crimes have caused. I have had regard to these statements to the extent that I am permitted to do so in accordance with the law.
It was submitted on behalf of Mr Yoo that he has demonstrated remorse. The Crown disputed this. For the reasons that follow, I consider that Mr Yoo has clearly shown that he is relevantly remorseful for his actions in killing the Cho family.
First, Mr Yoo wrote a letter addressed to me. The complete text of that letter is as follows:
“My name is Kwang Kyung Yoo, and I am writing this letter to express how sorry I am and also to acknowledge how my actions and decisions have affected other peoples’ lives.
I know that I have been held captive by sin, I admit my sin and I want to turn from it and begin to follow and serve GOD, I give myself to Jesus Christ, Our Lord.
I am truly sorry, not just for my victims but for their families as they have lost a loved one whether it be a son, daughter, brother, sister or grandchild.
I know that me saying sorry won’t able to bring them back. My only hope is that knowing that I am truly remorseful might help you all process yours loss that little bit easier.
Please know not a day goes by that I don’t remember what I have done.
I hope that me accepting this plea, but also acknowledge your loss and also apologising and letting you know how truly sorry I am, gives you all some comfort and I hope that one day you might be able to find some happiness in your lives.
I myself am learning to live with what I have done and how my actions have affected my victims and their families, friends and all the people close to them.
I wish I could turn back time so this didn’t happened.
I pray every day for the people I have hurt, [BC] and his mother and father also pray for their families and friends.
This is something that I can do every day and night and I will never forget what I have done.
And I can’t express how truly sorry I am.”
“Patient said that he feels there must be a reason he didn’t die during his index offence, and that God must want him to stay alive, so he will do it.
Said it’s possible that God wanted him to live, so he will be able to regret his sin.
But also he feels he has been away from God for too long, as throughout the last few years when he and his family have been struggling, he has been starting to question why God is not helping him.
Feels that God knew this and so now he must live with himself and his sin, and work on getting back to God.
Feels that being in prison is the consequence of his sin and he must stay here and live through it.”
In another such entry on 8 March 2024, Mr Yoo is reported to have expressed feelings that “his sins are too large to be forgiven”. He had earlier expressed the view that he had committed an “unforgiveable sin”.
Unlike many instances when so-called expressions of remorse are difficult to distinguish from an inmate’s statements of personal and self-centred regret for his or her personal circumstances, Mr Yoo’s letter and his reported comments to Justice Health workers are quite different, and are at least implicitly replete with what amounts to self-loathing and a recognition and acceptance of the terrible nature of his offending. That realistic, almost fateful, tone of resignation that his crimes cannot be forgiven is in my view a practical manifestation of authentic remorse.
I note that Mr Yoo has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and that he is entitled in those circumstances to be considered for a discount of 25 percent on his sentence. In the events that have occurred, and in light of the sentences I intend to impose, that entitlement retreats in significance. I should also observe that the inevitability that Mr Yoo would have confronted a most compelling and extremely strong Crown case should his guilt for these offences had been put in issue, means that the significance of the pleas is accordingly also reduced.
It is not controversial that Mr Yoo intended to kill the deceased or that he planned to do so and violently carried out his plans. The only issue of significance, although not the only issue requiring consideration by me, is whether the murders attract sentences of life imprisonment or lengthy sentences of imprisonment falling short of the permissible maximum.
Section 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provides:
“A court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on a person who is convicted of murder if the court is satisfied that the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence.”
The principles to be applied by a court considering the operation of the section are well settled and were recently summarised in Rogerson v R; McNamara v R [2021] NSWCCA 160 at [616]-[637].
Consideration of the question of whether or not to impose a life sentence involves a two-stage test. First, the court considers factors such as the offender's culpability in the commission of the offence by reference only to circumstances surrounding it or causally connected to it. These include the objective seriousness of the offence, the offender's background, the offender's criminal history and any mental disease, disorder or incapacity: see R v Harris [2000] NSWSC 285; (2000) 111 A Crim R 415 at [85]; CC v R; R v CC [2021] NSWCCA 71 at [81].
The factors to consider do not include remorse, any guilty plea, prospects of rehabilitation or assistance to authorities: R v Harris.
The court considers whether the Crown has established beyond reasonable doubt that the offender's "culpability is so extreme that the community interest, in the combined effect of such of the four indicia as are applicable, could only be met by such a sentence": R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; (2004) 59 NSWLR 557 at [5]; [42].
In undertaking this task, it is not necessary for all four factors to be applicable: R v Merritt at [4]. Although the absence of one or more of them "will make it more difficult for a trial judge to reach the state of satisfaction required": R v Merritt at [5]. Where there are multiple murders committed in a single course of conduct, "the court may have regard to the whole of the conduct in determining the level of culpability involved in the commission of each offence": Adanguidi v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 404; (2006) 167 A Crim R 295 at [32].
Secondly, even if the court reaches the state of satisfaction required, it has a discretion under s 21(1) to impose a lesser sentence: CC at [83]; Rogerson at [634]. This "involves a consideration of all relevant matters, not merely those that affect the offender's level of culpability in the commission of the offence": CC at [81]; Rogerson at [634]. A life sentence may be imposed even though an offender has pleaded guilty: R v Miles [2002] NSWCCA 276 at [213]; R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 at [157]-[158]; Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292 at [37].
It is the combined effect of the four indicia in s 61(1) which is critical: R v Merritt at [52], [54]. The presence and significance of any combination of the criteria may still lead to the conclusion that the level of culpability is so extreme that the community interest can only be met through the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life: ; at [55].
The Crown submitted that the murders of Mr Cho, Ms Cho and BC warrant the imposition of life sentences. The Crown submitted that I would be satisfied that Mr Yoo’s level of culpability for these offences is so extreme that the community’s interests can only be met with the imposition of life sentences. The Crown submitted that the combined effect of the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence require such a result. Mr Yoo murdered an entire family for no reason other than the Chos were successful and Mr Yoo wanted what they had.
The Crown emphasised the following matters:
The murders were planned.
Mr Yoo intended to kill his victims.
There were multiple victims.
In the case of BC there was an egregious breach of trust.
Mr Yoo’s motivation was self-centred and narcissistic.
The murders occurred over a short space of time but at two different locations.
The manner and cause of death was violent, callous and inhumane.
None of Mr Yoo’s subjective factors is alone or in combination sufficient to displace the need for a life sentence.
Mr Yoo’s submissions were in summary as follows:
The three murders were intentional, planned and violently carried out.
Mr Yoo’s motive, while a form of greed, was bizarre and irrational.
Mr Yoo’s conduct was completely out of character and he is deeply remorseful.
His background and difficult early life should reduce his moral culpability to some extent.
The main issue is whether the murders call for life imprisonment or very lengthy determinate sentences.
Mr Yoo submitted that an appropriate sentence would be a very lengthy aggregate or overall effective sentence rather than life imprisonment.
I am satisfied that the level of culpability in the commission of these offences is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence.
Retribution is an ancient concept. At one level it stirs up notions of revenge or retaliation. I do not understand the statutory reference to retribution to be quite so base. Rather, it serves in my view to emphasise to the extent possible the need to put right whatever wrong has been inflicted by the taking of another’s life. The criminal justice system is barely adequate to provide such satisfaction. But it must take account of the requirement to provide justice if it can.
Mr Yoo must be punished. His thoughtful and introspective admissions in conversations with Justice Health bear witness to that reality. The deaths he caused, and the manner in which he caused them, cannot adequately be punished in the eyes of the community in general or the victims’ family in particular only by the imposition of a determinate sentence.
The circumstances in which and from which Mr Yoo determined to kill his victims is in my experience extremely unusual. His reasons for doing so appear on any view to be wholly disproportionate to the crimes he committed. These crimes were never going to remain undetected. Mr Yoo’s hoped-for gains were never going to materialise. Such was his blameless background and so apparently irrational were his actions that they could never have been foreseen or prevented. The murders of the three members of the Cho family erupted from nothing that could ever have been predicted. And so it seems to me is the currently remaining unpredictability of Mr Yoo’s conduct. I acknowledge Dr Ellis’s opinion about Mr Yoo’s risk of reoffending but I remain cautious notwithstanding.
General deterrence is important in this case. The marked disconnect between the extravagance of Mr Yoo’s crimes and the apparent reasons for their commission make it likely that this case will attract considerable attention. No suggestion or inference that innocent people might be murdered for what is in reality no reason at all should be permitted to survive or flourish in the community without the notorious certainty of significant consequences.
I see no basis upon which legitimately to exercise my discretion to impose a lesser sentence.
Kwang Kyung Yoo, you are convicted of the murders of Min Kyung Cho, Hyun Soo Cho and BC. On each count, you are sentenced to imprisonment for life, commencing on 19 February 2024.
**********
R
Yoo [2025] NSWSC 1522
(2013) 249 CLR 571
(2004) 59 NSWLR 557
(2000) 49 NSWLR 383
At about 7.36pm, Mr Yoo put Ms Cho's BMW car key into a drawer in reception. He then returned to the gym area. The class finished at 7.51pm and the students left. BC remained.
Mr Yoo called his wife and said, "The car has arrived." He then turned off all the lights in the mat room and then returned to the reception area. He then turned off the lights in reception.
Nor did there appear to be any plan to dispose of the bodies or otherwise conceal the offences after they had been committed. The plan, such as it was, would appear to have been limited to doing what Mr Yoo irrationally believed was necessary to acquire Ms Cho’s vehicle so that he could treat it as his own.
Mr Yoo did not appear to give any thought to avoiding detection, such as by changing number plates on the vehicle or in any other way. On the contrary, Mr Yoo took and wore Ms Cho's Apple watch, which could likely have been tracked. It was therefore inevitable that these crimes would be discovered. When questioned by police at the hospital, Mr Yoo gave an explanation for his injuries which was readily and quickly discovered to be false.
I find that the murders were planned and premeditated. However, no part of Mr Yoo’s planning was in any way related to preventing or forestalling his apprehension or the detection of his crimes.
The Crown does not necessarily accept, but I find, that Mr Yoo’s motivation for the murders was to acquire Ms Cho’s BMW vehicle and the Cho family money. As entirely fantastic as this may appear to be, the existence of this motivation finds support in more than one location. For example, Mr Yoo gave the following explanation as recorded by Dr Ellis in a report tendered on behalf of Mr Yoo:
Whether considered individually or together, these killings were horrific and violent acts, senselessly cruel and cynical, perpetrated without a trace of human compassion or consideration for the dignity of the Cho family. In my view, the murders of all three of Mr Yoo’s victims were at the upper end of objective seriousness.
Where multiple murders are committed by an offender as part of a single episode of criminality, as is the case here, the Court is permitted to take that fact into account in determining whether an offence falls within the worst category and within s 61(1): R v Harris at [94]-[95]; Regina v Quill (a pseudonym) [2005] NSWCCA 4 and Adanguidi at [32]. In each case, the objective criminality of one offence is capable of informing the objective criminality of another, and the court may have regard to the whole of the conduct in determining the level of culpability involved in the commission of each offence: Adanguidi at [32].