Complete Summary of the Push to Lower the Age of Criminal Responsibility to 13, Key Issues in Juvenile Law Reform, and Future Outlook

In February 2026, President Lee Jae-myung declared at a Cabinet meeting
that regarding the plan to lower the age of juvenile offenders exempt from criminal punishment from the current 14 to 13,
"public opinion is overwhelming," and he would reach a conclusion within two months.

Discussions on revising the Juvenile Act have been repeated for years,
but this time marks a distinctly different phase, as the president himself
set a specific deadline, demonstrating clear political will.

A series of violent crimes committed by minors, including the attack on a mother and her two daughters in Wonju,
has pushed public outrage over the juvenile offender exemption system to its peak,
serving as the backdrop for this decisive move.

Successive Violent Crimes by Minors Fuel Outrage Over Juvenile Exemption System

From late 2025 through early 2026, violent crimes committed by minors
were reported one after another, sending shockwaves through society.

The attack on a mother and her two daughters in Wonju in particular
ignited public fury over the juvenile exemption system when it became known
that the teenage perpetrator could be excluded from criminal prosecution.

Beyond that case, reports of serious crimes by minors continued to surface,
including group assaults, sexual offenses, and robberies,
spreading the widespread perception that offenders "use their age as a shield to escape punishment."

A petition on the National Assembly's public petition system demanding the abolition of the Juvenile Act
surpassed 1 million signatures,
setting one of the highest consent records in history.

Current Criminal Responsibility Age Standards and Comparison With Major Countries

Article 9 of the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea stipulates that
"the act of a person who has not reached the age of 14 shall not be punishable."

This provision has been maintained since the Criminal Act was first enacted in 1953,
meaning the same standard has been applied for over 70 years.

However, given that the physical and mental maturity rate of adolescents in modern society,
their access to information, and their ability to recognize criminal behavior have changed significantly from the past,
questions are being raised about whether this standard remains appropriate for today's reality.

As the table shows,
while some countries apply the same age-14 standard as South Korea,
countries like the United States and the United Kingdom impose criminal responsibility at much younger ages.

In the case of France, its 2021 revision of the Juvenile Criminal Code
made it possible to impose custodial sentences from age 13,
which is a directly comparable case to South Korea's current discussion of lowering the threshold to age 13.

Lowering to Age 13: What Would Actually Change

Under the current system, even if a 13-year-old commits a serious crime such as murder or robbery,
juvenile protective measures (up to 2 years in a juvenile reformatory) are the maximum penalty.

If the age of criminal responsibility is lowered by one year to age 13,
13-year-olds would become subject to prosecution,
enabling them to receive actual criminal penalties such as imprisonment through criminal trials.

However, since the Juvenile Act contains separate provisions capping sentences for minors,
the punishment would not be entirely equivalent to that of adults.

Nevertheless, the key change is
the shift from "only protective measures possible" to "criminal punishment possible,"
which carries significant legal and symbolic meaning.

Public Deliberation Led by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family: Procedural Significance and Path Forward

At the Cabinet meeting, President Lee Jae-myung directed the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family
to lead public deliberation on lowering the juvenile offender exemption age.

The designation of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family rather than the Ministry of Justice as the lead agency
is interpreted as a commitment to approach the issue from a comprehensive child and youth policy perspective.

Public deliberation does not simply mean conducting opinion polls,
but is a systematic decision-making process that includes
expert consultation, citizen participation, and collecting input from stakeholders.

Given the two-month deadline,
the government's position could be finalized as early as April,
with a legislative amendment bill expected to be submitted to the National Assembly thereafter.

However, since this matter requires simultaneous revision of both Article 9 of the Criminal Act (criminal non-responsibility of minors) and the Juvenile Act,
additional deliberation during review by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee is inevitable.

Abolition of the Juvenile Act vs. Maintaining Rehabilitation and Protective Measures

Beyond simply lowering the juvenile exemption age,
the argument that the Juvenile Act itself should be abolished
and the argument that the basic framework of rehabilitation and protective measures should be maintained
are sharply opposed.

Those in favor of abolition argue that victims' suffering is irrelevant to the perpetrator's age,
and that the current protective measures fail to serve as an effective deterrent against serious crimes.

In particular, they cite the maximum juvenile reformatory sentence of just 2 years
as being far too lenient for extreme crimes such as murder and sexual assault
as their strongest argument.

On the other hand, those in favor of maintaining the system point to neuroscience research showing that
prefrontal lobe development in adolescents is incomplete,
resulting in significantly lower impulse control and ability to predict consequences compared to adults.

They also present empirical research from abroad showing that
harsher criminal penalties actually lead to higher recidivism rates,
emphasizing that strengthening rehabilitation programs is more effective than punishment.

1 Million Petition Signatures and Political Dynamics in the National Assembly

After the petition for revising the Juvenile Act on the National Assembly's public petition system
surpassed 1 million signatures,
the National Assembly became obligated to refer it to the plenary session for review.

This goes beyond mere online public sentiment
and signifies the beginning of a legislative process with legal binding force.

Both the ruling and opposition parties largely agree on a hardline approach to juvenile crime,
but differences in position exist regarding
the specific age threshold and scope of application.

Within the ruling party, there are movements to push for swift passage of the bill
in line with the president's directive to lower the age to 13,
while some in the opposition have suggested it should be lowered further to age 12.

Meanwhile, voices among the legal community and child rights experts argue that
lowering the age alone cannot fundamentally solve the problem,
calling for comprehensive measures including expanding juvenile reformatory capacity
and strengthening victim support systems.

Between Tougher Punishment and Prevention: Finding the Balance Society Needs

Lowering the juvenile offender exemption age is undoubtedly a necessary discussion,
but this alone will not solve the problem of juvenile crime.

While reducing gaps in punishment is important,
it must be accompanied by fundamental analysis of why juveniles turn to crime
and the establishment of prevention systems.

Social responses to the structural causes of juvenile crime—
family breakdown, school violence, economic poverty, and unprotected exposure to digital environments—
are just as urgently needed as tougher criminal penalties.

Given that the president has set a two-month deadline,
the public deliberation process must reflect the voices of diverse stakeholders.

The opinions of the legal community, educators, child rights experts, victim advocacy groups,
and civil society must be collected in a balanced manner
for institutional improvements that the public can accept.

Lowering the juvenile offender exemption age could become
a historic turning point, as it would be the first change to this standard in 70 years.

Closing the gaps in punishment while keeping the door open
for even one more young person to turn away from crime—
that is the ultimate direction this discussion should aim for.