Court Rejects Appeal of 20s Doctor Who Sexually Assaulted Drunken Woman by Roadside... 2-Year Prison Sentence Upheld

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] A current doctor who was sentenced to prison for sexually assaulting a woman in a drunken state by taking her from the roadside to a lodging facility appealed the first trial verdict but was dismissed.

The Criminal Division 1 of the Daejeon High Court (Chief Judge Lee Jun-myung) announced on the 27th that it dismissed both the prosecution's and A (28), a doctor who was sentenced to two years in prison in the first trial for quasi-rape, appeals in the appellate trial.

Quasi-rape is a crime punished the same as forcibly raping a normal victim through violence or threats when the victim is in a state of mental incapacity, intoxication, or asleep, making resistance impossible.

The court stated, "The defendant vehemently denied the crime with baseless claims during the investigation and the first trial, but suddenly changed his attitude and immediately admitted guilt after receiving a prison sentence in the first trial," adding, "Although an additional settlement was reached with the victim, it does not constitute grounds for mitigation."

Furthermore, the court dismissed the prosecution's appeal arguing that the original sentence was too lenient, stating, "There is no reason to consider the first trial's sentencing judgment inappropriate."

A was prosecuted on charges of sexually assaulting a woman in her 20s who was sitting by the roadside in a heavily intoxicated state and unable to control her body while returning home in the early morning last summer. After briefly talking to her, he took a taxi and brought her to a hotel where the assault occurred.

Previously, the Daejeon District Court Criminal Division 11 (Chief Judge Kim Yong-chan), which handled A's first trial, sentenced him to two years in prison without detention on charges of quasi-rape and ordered his immediate imprisonment.

At that time, the court stated, "It cannot be considered a normal decision-making process that the intoxicated victim consented to sexual intercourse without even knowing the defendant's personal information," and added, "The doctor, who should protect human life, showed no remorse despite sexually assaulting a heavily intoxicated woman."

During the trial, A claimed that as a doctor, he approached out of concern and that they mutually agreed to have sexual intercourse during their conversation, but this was not accepted.

Considering witness statements that "the victim was unable to control her body" and the fact that the two moved to the hotel within about 10 minutes of their conversation, the court judged it difficult to see that there was actual consent to sexual intercourse.

The court also pointed out, "Many defendants seem to hold a distorted prejudice that 'intoxicated female victims are likely to implicitly consent to sexual intercourse,'" and noted, "Because of such erroneous stereotypes, many people are suffering injustice and disputes."

Furthermore, the court criticized A, saying, "In this case, even without mentioning the Hippocratic Oath that the defendant, a doctor, would have taken, what is necessary before qualifying as a doctor is the ability to empathize with members of society."