Guys, so I got curious and went to check the law cited in this chapter. Apparently, the author is NOT exaggerating. He based this on the Juvenile Act, passed in 1995.
The translation is simplified, but the gist is correct: juveniles over the age of 10 but under the age of 14 who have committed criminal offenses (which I assume include murder, although in this case the crime they committed is manslaughter) are not tried in a criminal court; instead they’re tried under a thing called “protective detention” (as stated in Chapter 2, Article 4, Section 1, Clause 2).
Protective Detention has many “punishments” (as defined in Section 3, Article 32, Paragraph 1), some of which do include “Juvenile Reformatory”, but it is completely possible for them to get away with “short-term probation” or “order to attend a lecture” (idk what this means). In addition, Article 32 Paragraph 6 stated that the protective disposition “must not affect the juvenile’s future status”, which I assume means “no permanent criminal record”?
They also mentioned having to write “essays”, which is probably included in the “alternative education” that they may receive only when they are under a short-term or a long-term probation (Article 32.2, Paragraph 1).
So if I understand this correctly, these guys were sentenced to probation lasting from 6 months to 2 years, and must attend “alternative education”. They won’t go to jail, they wouldn’t be tried as adults, and there is no permanent criminal record.
There are causes for appeals, but frankly I’m too tired to read that part, and Dowoon’s dad is probably too heartbroken to do so either. As insane as it seems, looks like it’s actually realistic that those guys would get away with manslaughter. It seems the Juvenile Act itself is also becoming a little controversial whenever a violent case involving juveniles appear in the news.