Medical Student Sentenced to 30 Years for Gangnam Station Dating Murder

1. Overview

On May 6, 2024, Choi, who was then a medical student, stabbed and killed his girlfriend on the rooftop of a building near Gangnam Station in Seoul. On September 11, 2025, the Supreme Court finalized his sentence of 30 years in prison and five years of probation.

Despite the article title, multiple reports confirm the same date for the Supreme Court’s final ruling. Herald Business and the Legal Times reported that the Supreme Court’s First Division (identified by the Legal Times as Criminal Division 1, with Justice Shin Suk-hee as the presiding justice) upheld the lower-court ruling on the 11th. Yonhap News TV also published its report that day. The case number is listed as 2025Do10098 in the Legal Times. By contrast, none of the reports reviewed gave the dates of the first- or second-instance rulings. Whether the date of the “ruling” can be confirmed therefore depends on which court’s ruling is meant.

2. The Incident

According to Herald Business, Choi and the victim were middle-school classmates. They began dating around February 2024 and registered their marriage in April of that year. The Legal Times reported that they registered their marriage about three weeks before the crime, broadly consistent with the other report. However, the victim’s family strongly opposed the marriage, and tensions grew as her parents pursued an annulment suit. According to the Legal Times, the victim’s parents told Choi that they intended to send a copy of the complaint to the medical school he attended.

The court concluded that Choi decided to kill the victim because he feared that if the school learned about the marriage, he could be disciplined and lose his academic credentials. The court also cited Choi’s statement during an argument with the victim the day before the crime: “I’m afraid your father will sue me and I’ll lose my academic credentials.” Herald Business reported that at around 8:50 a.m. on the day of the crime, Choi surveyed the scene in advance and bought two sashimi knives and two rolls of duct tape. That afternoon, he lured the victim to the building and stabbed her in the neck and face more than ten times, killing her. He then attempted suicide, but returned to the victim and attacked her with the knife again.

3. Diverging Rulings at the First and Second Trials

The first trial sentenced Choi to 26 years in prison. According to Edaily, prosecutors had sought the death penalty at the first trial. The trial court found clear and definite intent to kill, citing the fact that Choi had prepared two weapons, bought duct tape to keep the victim from screaming, and stabbed her repeatedly to ensure she was dead. However, it treated his extreme anxiety and despair around the time of the crime, as well as evidence that he attempted suicide afterward, as mitigating sentencing factors. The court said a lengthy prison sentence could be expected to prevent reoffending, and rejected requests for probation and an electronic monitoring order.

At the appeal, Choi’s side sought a reduced sentence, including by requesting a psychiatric evaluation, but the outcome was the opposite. The appellate court increased his sentence to 30 years in prison and ordered five years of probation. It treated the suicide attempt and psychological characteristics that the first court had viewed favorably as aggravating sentencing factors. The court noted that Choi had failed to alert anyone to the victim’s presence about five meters away when he was rescued, and said it was “difficult to find even the minimum acts of assistance or other duties expected of a human being.” Citing their marriage registration, Choi’s side argued that the crime should be classified under sentencing guidelines as “murder with a mitigating motive” (for which the recommended basic sentence is four to six years). The court rejected that argument, saying there was little to suggest that they had established the substance of a shared marital life. It also dismissed Choi’s efforts to shift responsibility onto the victim’s family or seek a reduced sentence by citing stress and his suicide attempt.

4. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal

On September 11, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and upheld the lower-court ruling. The Legal Times reported that appeals by both the prosecution and Choi were rejected, while Yonhap News TV reported that Choi’s appeal arguing that “the sentence is too harsh and unjust” was dismissed. The court said that, considering the defendant’s age, character and circumstances; his relationship with the victim; the motive, means and outcome of the crime; and the circumstances afterward, the 30-year sentence could not be considered unjust. A YouTube video by KBS News also reported that Choi’s 30-year sentence had been finalized.

Yonhap News TV added that the case drew controversy after it became known that Choi had sought a reduced sentence in the appeal by citing his pledge to donate his organs. The Supreme Court website’s judgment summary for the media is dated September 12, 2025, and includes an attached PDF of the ruling (2025Do10098).

5. Body-Desecration Complaint After the Sentence Was Finalized

The case did not end when the sentence was finalized. According to Yonhap News TV, the victim’s family filed a complaint against Choi in June 2025 on suspicion of desecrating a corpse. Edaily reported that the victim’s father claimed, “Choi confessed to mutilating the body during the initial investigation, but changed his statement after a lawyer was retained.” At the time, prosecutors considered the alleged mutilation part of the act of murder and did not bring it as a separate charge.

Police concluded that the body-desecration allegation was substantiated and referred the case to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office in January 2026. However, on February 26, prosecutors sent the case back to the police, requesting a supplementary investigation because further legal review was needed regarding the intent behind the crime and the evidence. Edaily reported this on March 5, 2026.

6. Authenticity Debate

The key issue is whether the date of the “ruling” in this case can be confirmed, and which ruling that date refers to.

6.1. The Date Can Be Confirmed

The argument on this side is that there is no doubt that the Supreme Court finalized its ruling on September 11, 2025. Herald Business wrote that the Supreme Court’s First Division upheld the lower-court ruling on the “11th.” The Legal Times gave both the date “September 11” and the case number 2025Do10098, and Yonhap News TV published a report that same day. Since multiple outlets point to the same date, this view holds that there is no room for another date.

Furthermore, Edaily’s statement that “the 30-year prison sentence was finalized by the Supreme Court last September” shows that the month is consistent even in reports published at different times. The Supreme Court website also has the ruling’s PDF, so this side argues that saying the date of the final ruling cannot be confirmed is an exaggeration.

6.2. The Date Cannot Be Confirmed

The opposing side begins by pointing out that “the ruling” does not refer only to the Supreme Court. There were three rulings in this case: a 26-year sentence at the first trial, a 30-year sentence on appeal, and the Supreme Court’s final ruling. Yet none of the reports reviewed gives the date of the first- or second-instance ruling. The sequence of the sentences is known, but their dates are not. In these circumstances, it is difficult to say that the dates of all the rulings have been confirmed.

The fact that the Supreme Court website lists the publication date as September 12 also leaves room for confusion. It is natural to regard this as the posting date rather than the date of the ruling, but someone could mistake it for a “September 12 ruling.” There is also the limitation that, without directly reviewing the original PDF of the ruling, one has no choice but to rely on the dates reported by the media.

6.3. Summary

Taken together, the reports agree that the Supreme Court finalized its ruling on September 11, 2025, but the sources do not confirm the dates of the first- and second-instance rulings. Which ruling the article title’s phrase “could not be confirmed” refers to remains a point of dispute.

7. Trivia

• The photo caption in Edaily states that Choi was transferred from Seocho Police Station to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on May 14, 2024, about a week after the crime on May 6.
• Herald Business reported Choi’s age as 26 in September 2025, while Edaily reported it as 27 in March 2026. This appears to reflect the difference in reporting dates.