Abstract

This study analyzed 202 Korean lay-participation trial cases (decided between 2019 and 2024) in which either a custodial sentence or a fine was ultimately imposed. The aims of the study were to determine whether the severity-leniency effect is also observed in the sentencing decisions of jurors and judges, and to explore its mechanisms by comparing the patterns of sentencing agreement between inter-jurors and judge-jury. The analysis revealed that, for both penalty types (imprisonment and fines), as the possible punishment increased, the severity-leniency effect-where the sentencing judgments of jurors and judges converged toward the lower limit of the standard range-was observed. Furthermore, as the possible punishment increased, both the likelihood of agreement among jurors and that of between jurors and judges decreased; moreover, as the severity of the crime increased, the variation in disagreement among jurors was greater than that of between jurors and judges. The severity-leniency effect observed in this study contradicted public opinion favoring harsher punishment. Furthermore, the results of this study contradict the logical expectation that people would conform to reduce the perceived responsibility associated with their judgment as the severity of the case increases. In the discussion, possible reasons for the results-which contradict these expectations-were presented, focusing on the procedural characteristics inherent in legal judgments in Korean lay-participation trials. The significance of this study lies in extending the severity-leniency effect to sentencing judgments using actual trial data.