A state-run care facility in South Korea has become the centre of a national scandal after its director was convicted of sexually assaulting multiple residents with intellectual disabilities, a case that has laid bare serious deficiencies in how the country protects its most vulnerable citizens.
The Seoul court handed down a 15-year prison sentence earlier this month to the facility's director, identified only by his surname Kim, for raping two residents at Saekdongwon, a care home for people with intellectual disabilities located in the city of Incheon. Kim has denied all allegations and has filed an appeal against the conviction.
The case first came to public attention through the courage of one woman, a resident in her 40s whom the BBC has chosen to call Seo Mi-hyeon to protect her identity. Seo, who has difficulty forming complete sentences and typically communicates through short phrases and gestures, approached police with a simple but devastating statement: she was hurting inside and wanted to share her story.
According to court testimony, the abuse began not long after Seo moved into Saekdongwon in 2016. Kim would come to her room during the night or in the early hours of the morning and rape her. Speaking through her lawyer, Ko Eun-young, Seo described enduring this treatment for nearly a decade, with no adult at the facility she felt she could turn to for help. She believed other staff members would not come to her aid. The care home has not responded to that allegation.
Seo's ordeal remained hidden until February 2025, when she sustained a head injury during what she said was one of Kim's attempts to sexually assault her. She had tried to fend him off with her hands, and in response he threw a glass at her. The facility took her to hospital and only contacted her mother after the wound had been stitched, according to her lawyer.
When Seo's mother asked to review CCTV footage to understand how her daughter had been hurt, the care home refused, claiming it was not authorised to release the material. That refusal prompted her mother to bring Seo home and remove her from the facility. It was only after Seo learned she would not have to return to Saekdongwon that she finally felt able to tell her mother about the sexual abuse, which was then reported to police.
In her first comments to investigators, Seo explained that she had felt safe speaking out only because she knew she would not be sent back. Asked how she had coped for so many years on her own, she replied simply that she had endured it.
A police investigation into Seo's account expanded to include other residents, eventually identifying at least two additional alleged victims. One of them, identified as Lee Mi-na, also said Kim had raped her. Earlier this month, a judge found all three victims' testimony credible and convicted Kim of raping both Lee and Seo, handing down a 15-year sentence — five years less than what prosecutors had sought. For the third victim, the court found Kim guilty of the lesser charge of sexual violence, with the judge stating that the rape charge was dropped because there was insufficient evidence that force or threats had been used to render the victim unable to resist.
A joint response committee composed of disability rights organisations and other civic groups has sharply criticised that aspect of the ruling, arguing that whether a victim was able to resist an assault should have no bearing on the verdict. The committee has also condemned the investigation process, saying authorities failed to identify additional potential victims.
Those concerns appear to be supported by an independent assessment commissioned after the initial allegations emerged. In November of last year, local authorities from Ganghwa County tasked a research team from Woosuk University with conducting an in-depth evaluation of Saekdongwon's residents. The resulting report, submitted to the court as evidence, identified indications that at least ten residents may have been sexually assaulted by Kim. However, the trial court did not address those findings in its ruling.
The limited scope of the investigation appears to stem partly from the severe communication difficulties faced by many residents. According to local media reports, police struggled to gather detailed accounts because most residents had significant disabilities that impaired their ability to communicate. 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 had accepted only the accounts of people who could describe the abuse in complete sentences. Activists say this reliance on verbal testimony meant that residents with greater communication challenges were effectively excluded from being recognised as victims.
The case has also raised pressing questions about the broader system of state-funded care for people with intellectual disabilities in South Korea. Saekdongwon, which housed around 33 residents, was fully subsidised by the state and has now been asked to close in light of the case. The facility's closure would mark a significant step, but advocates argue that systemic problems extend beyond a single institution, pointing to gaps in oversight, reporting mechanisms, and protections for residents who may be unable to articulate their experiences.
For Seo and the other victims, the trial has brought a measure of accountability, though the road to justice was long and painful. Kim's appeal means the legal process is not yet over, and the sentence could still be altered. Meanwhile, the joint response committee and disability rights advocates continue to press for reforms that would ensure residents of care facilities are heard, protected, and believed, regardless of how they communicate.
The case has resonated deeply across South Korean society, prompting reflection on how the state cares for some of its most marginalised citizens. At its heart lies the testimony of a woman who spent nearly a decade suffering in silence and who found the strength to speak only when she was finally told she was safe. Her words to police — that she came forward because she was hurting inside — remain the most powerful indictment of a system that failed to hear her for far too long.
(0)