A man in his 50s who attacked the CEO of a cryptocurrency investment firm during a court hearing has been sentenced to five years in prison. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, reaffirming the seriousness of violent acts committed inside a courtroom.
The incident stemmed from investment losses. The defendant, identified as Kang (51), had deposited his digital assets into “Haru Invest,” a crypto yield service that promoted “risk-free investment with guaranteed principal and top-tier returns.” The company reportedly collected about 1.4 trillion won (≈ $1 billion) from 16,000 investors before abruptly suspending withdrawals, leaving Kang among the victims.
On August 28, 2024, Kang attended a hearing at the Seoul Southern District Court, where he suddenly drew a knife he had brought and stabbed the company’s CEO multiple times in the neck. The victim suffered lacerations of 3.5 cm, 2 cm, and 5.5 cm, but fortunately survived the attack.
The court acknowledged that Kang suffered significant financial damage as an investor but emphasized that personal retaliation cannot be tolerated. It noted that committing a violent act in a courtroom — a public and symbolic space of justice — constitutes a grave disruption to judicial order and public trust.
Kang’s defense argued that he had no intent to kill and claimed the crime was an “attempted stoppage,” but the judges rejected that argument. The ruling stated that “the defendant exposed the victim’s neck and stabbed five consecutive times,” and that a psychiatric evaluation revealed he had thought “a fraudster deserves to die,” confirming intent to kill.
Both the district and appellate courts sentenced Kang to five years in prison, and the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal, stating that “the original ruling does not violate the principles of logic or the limits of judicial discretion.”
Meanwhile, the CEO and executives of Haru Invest are standing trial for allegedly raising 1.4 trillion won from investors between March 2020 and June 2023 under the guise of guaranteed returns and later halting withdrawals. They were acquitted in the first trial, but prosecutors have appealed the verdict.
