[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that acquitting a defendant on the grounds that a sexual assault victim did not exhibit the 'typical reactions expected from a victim of forced sexual assault' after the incident was incorrect.
On the 17th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) announced that it overturned the lower court's acquittal in the appeal trial of university student A, who was charged with quasi-forced sexual assault, and remanded the case to the Uijeongbu District Court.
A was prosecuted for allegedly inserting his hand under the blanket to molest B, who was sleeping at the lodging, during a two-day, one-night trip with friends from the same university department, including B, at the end of 2016.
At the time, it was investigated that B stayed with A at the crime scene after the incident, took photos together at the lodging and a cafe, and drank alcohol alone with A. Additionally, B filed a complaint against A not immediately after the incident but 2 years and 7 months later in 2019, after A completed his military service and returned to school.
The first trial sentenced A to six months in prison. The trial court stated, "When assessing the credibility of sexual violence victims' testimonies, caution should be exercised in applying the conventional experiential rule, which assumes 'it is difficult to consider it sexual violence if the victim did not exhibit behaviors typically expected of sexual violence victims,'" and added, "This can be described as 'gender sensitivity'." Furthermore, it noted, "The need for caution in applying experiential rules according to the nature of each crime applies not only to sexual violence crimes but to all crimes."
On the other hand, the second trial acquitted A. The court at that time pointed out, "B's testimony regarding the specific molestation situation is unclear or unconvincing," and "B's behavior after the incident cannot be considered a reaction typical of a victim of forced sexual assault." The court focused on the fact that B took 'selfies' with A on a mobile phone at the lodging after the incident, took group photos with A and others at a cafe, drank alcohol alone with A at a pub, and spent a long time together in a 'multi-room' (room cafe).
However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court stated, "The way a sexual violence victim copes varies depending on the victim's personality, the relationship with the perpetrator, and the specific circumstances," and "The lower court erred in its understanding of the evidentiary value of the evidence, which affected the judgment."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
