South Korea’s Supreme Court Finalizes Life Sentence for Teacher in Brutal 2025 Classroom Murder Case

The final ruling confirms a life term for Myeong Jae-wan, the teacher who murdered a 7-year-old student in a Daejeon classroom in 2025.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 3, 2026, 4:47 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from Yonhap

Final Judicial Confirmation of a Life Term

The highest court in South Korea reached a definitive ruling on Thursday, bringing an end to the legal proceedings surrounding one of the country's most harrowing school-based crimes. Myeong Jae-wan, 49, was confirmed to serve a life sentence for the killing of her student, Kim Ha-neul. The Supreme Court's decision follows a series of appeals where the defense sought leniency based on the defendant's psychological state, while the prosecution had consistently pushed for the death penalty given the gravity of the breach of trust involved.

The Premeditated Nature of the 2025 Attack

The tragedy occurred on February 10, 2025, within the walls of an elementary school in the central city of Daejeon. Investigations revealed that Myeong had lured the 7-year-old victim to a specific classroom before attacking her with a weapon she had acquired and prepared in advance. The court emphasized that the defendant did not act on impulse; rather, she had executed a "thoroughly planned" scheme. Additionally, Myeong was convicted of prior violent outbursts, including the destruction of school property and the assault of a fellow educator just days before the murder took place.

Rejection of the Mental Impairment Defense

A central pillar of Myeong’s defense during the trial was the claim that she was suffering from a mentally impaired state at the time of the incident. However, the Supreme Court flatly rejected this assertion. The justices noted that Myeong’s ability to follow a prepared plan, her subsequent attempts to cover up the evidence, and the clarity of her detailed statements during the investigation all pointed toward a person in full possession of her faculties. The court ruled that these calculated actions were incompatible with a claim of legal insanity or diminished responsibility.