'The juvenile delinquency rate for minors aged 10 to 13 has been increasing correspondingly, with 9,051 cases in 2018 and 16,836 cases in 2022, reaching a new peak every year (Supreme Court, South Korea 2022).'

It's a shame, can you believe it? That just between the ages of approximately 10-13 juvenile cases have been increasing (in 2022, of course there might be a set back but still), and while it isn't stated whether or not the cases are from 'petty' to serious crimes, it's repulsive to think that let's say one out of 16 thousand comits a crime at age 10-13 for murder, SA, etc... in fact it could even be said that they could be the victims of such a crime by someone in the same age range as them, younger, (I could say older, but I'm not sure how right I will be).

Juveniles (persons under 19 years of age) in South Korea are divided into three categories based on their age: Chokbeop Seonyeon (10–13 years old), Beomjoe Sonyeon (14–19 years old), and Ubeom Sonyeon (10–19 years).

(Of course the 19 might have been lowered, I'm not sure when this was last updated.) Now this is weird, there's a ages 10-13 (I assume for petty crimes), 14-19 ( I assume for crimes like underage drinking etc... and then there's 10-19. I'm overthinking this of course. Although it seems that for Beomjoe Sonyeon there is a chance at being tried as an adult, but there are protected by protective dispositions because of the inability to make wise decisions regarding their maturity.

I'm sorry... but what? Sure, this makes sense. But let's think of it this way, there's a child who is being tested, they either
A. Follow the creepy stranger wherever they are taking them... 
Or B. Run to the nearest trusted adult, police station, or home. 

This seems like a shallow way to give an example but all my others were too deep... so let's say they choose A, netizens will see them as pitiful yet stupid at the same time (this can depend on various variables during the situation, was the person a familiar face? A kind face? A mean face? Etc.), and if they choose B they will think they are smart and lucky. So if a child were to make a decision between killing someone because of their urge or intention, or making themselves turn the other way, what would be the right decision? It is said their inability to make wise decisions is why the law is enforced, so then what is the right decision? To walk way, or to kill? 

If they walk away, they are still wrong, if they kill, they are still wrong. And in the end, they are still wrong, the human mind does not take long to give into it's desires, us humans are paranoid and greedy creatures out for only ourselves even if we think it's for others. But the day we truly give in, what will snap? 

The same goes for kids, they are greedy, and follow their impulsilveness at such a age, but there's no excuse for following impulsive and intrusive thoughts for sexual assault, murder, etc. What type of mind do you need to even follow through with that at any age? Especially at such a young age?

In May 2020, eight 13-year-old middle school students who stole a rental car from Seoul hit a motorcycle and killed an 18-year-old college student. Immediately after the accident, they attempted to run away and steal another vehicle but were not criminally punished due to their young age.

I think most of us know of this case that happened in Korea, it was pretty big wasn't it? And most netizens hearts went out to the victim and their family, but nothing too big happened to the middle school students.

What if these roles were reversed? What if the 18 year old was the one to murder those students? Would there be such pity taken up on them? No! In fact they might be charged for years in prison and fined for this hit and run!

It is said, if you commit the crime, you must be able to handle the consequences. 

That poor boy, I truly am sorry for his lack of justice, he had just entered adulthood. (I truly am.)

This wasn't the only crime by those children and they weren't even punished for it, thank you Juvenile Sentence Law, for making lives of victim's family's harder.

“only children who have committed highly serious crimes will be subject to the Criminal Act, and the majority will be subjected to the Juvenile Act as usual.”

I'm sorry there are a lot of things I'm skipping out on I feel I'm only pointing out the parts I want to. Okay, so there was a vote (kind-of) I believe to abolish (nah not really) instead to lower it: 

As pledged by South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-yeol during his election campaign to lower the criminal age by two years to 12, Yoon stated, “When it comes to human rights, the rights of the offender are important, but the rights of the victim or potential victim are also important, so we decided to take a step that is in line with the global trend”

I interpret this as lowering the age of the act from 14 to 12, there are many gaps in this long ass paragraph, sorry.

Either way, I think I'm intepreting it wrong, because why lower it from 14 to 12, so that 12-17 year olds can have the priveledege of commiting serious crimes? either way, I'm not too educated on that interpretation, I'm just here making guesses. Or maybe it is from 12-14 can they be exempted from being tried as an adult for crimes. I'm not sure, I require more research, feel free to correct me.

Although this can vary depending on their age and development, research has shown that “juveniles are less capable of mature judgment than adults, more vulnerable to negative influences, and have a greater capacity for change and reform than adult offenders” 

Haha, what do you factor as an adult? 19? 20? 21? The brain dosen't stop developing until mid to late twenties, so what can be considered an adult anyways? Those who can drink? Those who can drive? Those who can smoke? 

the commission believes it is still difficult to hold children responsible for their actions and administer harsh consequences to them despite the physical and social development of adolescents throughout the years.

" GaSp! I believe my child isn't responsible for this murder, because their brain hasn't fully developed to the mere reach of murder. In fact, they shouldn't be held esponsible for their actions because it was done under the adolescent mind of a teenager, case closed."

This might be my punch line if my child ever gets convicted of a murder they do, cause it sounds ridiculous, it'll sound especially ridiculous to the victim's family.

(I only included one example in this, but there are 10 serious cases that has happened which are small cases questoning this Law during the past 3 years.) 

I'd also like to point out I'm doing more research on this Law, I was just hasty to put out this cause I really need opinions. Either way, I made some dumb, smart, important, and incorrect points here, but in admist of my research, I'll leave my first draft here for now. Plus this is just my opinion at the moment, the further I divulge into this, the more difficult my explanation/side will get.