South Korea Care Home Director Jailed for 15 Years Over Sexual Abuse of Disabled Residents

A Seoul court has sentenced the former director of a state-funded care home for people with intellectual disabilities to 15 years in prison after he was convicted of repeatedly raping two residents and committing sexual violence against a third, a case that has ignited outrage across South Korea and prompted fresh scrutiny of how the country protects some of its most vulnerable citizens.

The man, who has only been identified by his surname Kim, headed Saekdongwon, a residential facility in the city of Incheon that houses roughly 33 people and is fully subsidised by the state. He has denied all allegations and has appealed against the ruling, leaving his victims and their advocates preparing for a further legal battle.

The court heard that some residents were required to address Kim as "Dad", a detail prosecutors argued laid bare the deeply unequal power relationship between the director and the people in his care. The trial, which concluded nearly two years after the abuse first came to light, has been described by civic groups as a shocking indictment of the oversight of disability facilities.

The case became public in February 2025, when one resident, a woman in her 40s identified in this article as Seo Mi-hyeon, sustained a head injury. According to her account, relayed through her lawyer Ko Eun-young, the wound occurred during one of Kim's attempts to sexually assault her. She tried to fend him off with her hands, and he responded by throwing a glass at her.

Seo's lawyer told the court that staff at Saekdongwon took her to hospital but only contacted her mother after the wound on her head had been stitched. When her mother asked to view CCTV footage to understand how her daughter had been hurt, the facility refused, saying it was not authorised to release the recordings. That refusal prompted her mother to take Seo out of the home and withdraw her from the facility.

It was only after Seo was told she would not have to return to Saekdongwon that she finally spoke about what had been happening to her, and her mother reported the matter to police. Seo said she had felt unable to speak earlier because there was no adult at the facility she trusted to help her, and she believed other staff members would not intervene. The care home has not responded to that allegation.

"I thought it was safe to speak because I was told I didn't have to go back to Saekdongwon," Seo said through her lawyer. Asked how she had coped for so long, she replied simply: "I just endured it." She told police her first words to them were: "I was hurting inside, so I came to tell my story." Seo, who struggles to form long sentences and communicates largely through brief words and gestures, nonetheless gave a clear account of the abuse, which she said began shortly after she moved into the home in 2016 and continued for almost a decade.

After Seo's disclosure, police widened their investigation to other residents and identified at least two further alleged victims, including a woman referred to here as Lee Mi-na, who said Kim had also raped her. Earlier this month, a judge found the testimony of all three women credible, convicting Kim of raping Lee and Seo. The sentence of 15 years was five years shorter than the term prosecutors had sought.

For the third victim, Kim was convicted on a lesser charge of sexual violence. The judge ruled that the rape charge in her case could not stand because there was insufficient conclusive evidence that force or threats had been used to render her unable to resist. That reasoning has drawn sharp criticism from a joint response committee of disability rights and civic organisations, which argues that a victim's capacity to resist an assault should have no bearing on the verdict delivered.

The committee has also attacked the conduct of the investigation, saying police failed to identify additional potential victims. In November last year, after the initial allegations emerged, local authorities in Ganghwa County commissioned a team from Woosuk University to carry out an in-depth assessment of Saekdongwon's residents. The resulting report, submitted to the court as evidence, found indications that at least 10 residents may have been sexually assaulted by Kim. The trial court did not address that finding.

According to local media reports, police struggled to establish the details of alleged abuse when interviewing residents, because most have severe disabilities and face significant difficulties communicating. Some reportedly gave answers unrelated to the questions posed, while others did not respond at all. Jeon Ji-su, the professor who led the Woosuk research team, told the BBC that investigators accepted "only the accounts of people who could describe the abuse in complete sentences". Activists say this reliance on verbal testimony meant residents with greater communication difficulties were never recognised as victims.

The implications of the case extend well beyond the courtroom. Saekdongwon remains home to dozens of residents, even though it has been asked to close down in the wake of the scandal. The case has raised searching questions about whether South Korea's system of state-subsidised care for people with intellectual disabilities offers adequate protection, independent oversight, or meaningful avenues for residents to report abuse.

Disability advocates argue that the failures highlighted by the case are structural rather than isolated. They point to a care model in which residents can be heavily dependent on a single authority figure, where complaints are difficult to make and even harder to pursue, and where external monitoring is limited. The court's decision not to address the Woosuk report's finding of up to 10 possible additional victims has only deepened concerns that many more people may have suffered without recognition or redress.

Kim has not responded to allegations that he may have abused other residents. His appeal means the 15-year sentence is not yet final, and the women who testified may again have to relive their experiences in court. For Seo, the outcome represents a measure of acknowledgement after years of silence, but the wider questions the case has exposed — about who is believed, who is protected, and who is held to account — remain unresolved.