"You should be careful about 'reimbursement' and reflection of sentencing regardless of the victim."

Experts suggested that it should be prudent to reflect the reimbursement of relief funds or criminal deposits of perpetrators who are not related to the victim's intention in sentencing.

The Sentencing Research Group under the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee said yesterday afternoon (2nd) that the opinion came out at the "Victim and Sentencing" symposium.

Choi Joon-hyuk, a professor at Inha University Law School who attended the symposium, argued that the perpetrator's repayment of the debt by exercising the right to indemnify after the state paid the rescue should not be viewed as a "damage recovery" set by the sentencing standards.

Judge Hyung-woong of the Uijeongbu District Court also pointed out that it is an premodern aspect to consider "money compensation" without the psychological elements of the victim as a favorable sentencing factor.

Crime victim relief money is a system in which the state pays relief money to victims and their bereaved families who have died or been seriously injured in the crime and then claims compensation from the perpetrator.

At the symposium, there was an opinion that the system should be improved to reflect the social controversy over "sudden deposit" limitedly in sentencing.