Court Fines Theater Actor 5 Million Won for Secretly Urinating on High School Girl's Hair and Back

Not Guilty in 1st Trial → Not Guilty in 2nd Trial → Supreme Court Remands → Guilty Verdict
Supreme Court: "Forced Molestation Even If Victim Was Unaware"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A 30-year-old theater actor who secretly urinated on the head and back of a high school girl sitting on a playground bench while she was on a phone call was sentenced to a fine.

Previously, the first and second trials acquitted him on the grounds that the victim was unaware of the act at the time, so there was no infringement of her sexual self-determination rights, but the case was remanded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's position is that the act of molestation is established if the perpetrator commits an act contrary to sound sexual morals against the target, and the victim does not necessarily have to actually feel sexual shame or disgust.

On the 26th, the Criminal Appeals Division 5 of the Daejeon District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Kyung-hee) sentenced theater actor A (33) to a fine of 5 million won on charges of forcible molestation.

The court also ordered A to complete 40 hours of sexual violence treatment programs and restricted employment at child-related institutions for three years.

The court explained the reasoning, following the Supreme Court ruling, stating, "Even if the victim did not clearly recognize that she was being molested, the crime of forcible molestation is established."

The facts are as follows. On the evening of November 25, 2019, A, who was driving his vehicle while angry after an argument about acting with a fellow performer, stopped his car near an apartment in Dongnam-gu, Cheonan City, because he needed to urinate.

With the headlights and hazard lights on, A got out of the car to find a place to urinate and spotted victim B (then 18 years old) waiting at a crosswalk signal. To vent his anger, he followed B while cursing.

When they arrived at the apartment playground, B sat on a bench, smoking a cigarette while talking on the phone with a friend through earphones. In a fit of anger, A urinated on B’s hair and on the hoodie and padded jumper she was wearing from behind.

B, who had seen a shadow of someone behind her, felt something touch her head and touched the crown of her head but thought nothing was wrong. B testified to the police that she did not smell urine because she was wearing thick clothes and it was cold outside.

When she stood up from the bench to go home, B was startled by someone suddenly moving in front of her and realized it was A, whom she had seen earlier waiting at the crosswalk signal.

After arriving home, B finally noticed her clothes and hair were wet and smelled urine. Believing that A had urinated on her at the playground, B reported the incident to the police. B testified to the police that she felt annoyed and disgusted.

Eventually, A was prosecuted for forcible molestation but was acquitted in the first trial on the grounds that there was no infringement of B’s sexual self-determination rights.

At that time, the court cited a Supreme Court ruling stating, "The term 'molestation' under Article 298 of the Criminal Act requires not only an act that causes sexual shame or disgust to the general public and is contrary to sound sexual morals but also an infringement on the victim’s freedom of sexual self-determination." Since B did not recognize the urination at the time, the court held that A’s act did not infringe on B’s sexual self-determination rights.

The second trial also upheld the first trial’s judgment.

The prosecution maintained the primary charge of forcible molestation in the appeal trial and applied to add an alternative charge of assault, which the court approved.

However, since B expressed during the first trial that she did not want A to be punished, the court dismissed the assault charge. Assault is a "non-prosecution offense upon victim’s withdrawal of complaint," meaning it cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s wishes.

But the Supreme Court’s judgment was different.

First, the court cited the Supreme Court ruling that "for an act to be considered molestation, it is sufficient that the act objectively causes sexual shame or disgust to the general public and is contrary to sound sexual morals, and the victim does not necessarily have to actually feel sexual shame or disgust."

It continued, "The defendant secretly approached the victim, a woman he had never met before, exposed his genitals, and urinated on the victim’s back. Evaluated in light of the above legal principles, this act objectively causes sexual shame or disgust to the general public and is contrary to sound sexual morals, constituting an act of molestation that infringes on the victim’s sexual self-determination rights."

The court added, "If the defendant’s act objectively constitutes molestation, the victim’s sexual self-determination rights are infringed, and the fact that the victim did not recognize it at the time does not mean it is not molestation."

Ultimately, the court found that the first trial had erred in its legal interpretation of 'molestation' under Article 298 of the Criminal Act and failed to conduct necessary investigations, which affected the judgment. It accepted the prosecutor’s appeal and overturned the acquittal, remanding the case to the Daejeon District Court.

Meanwhile, A was also prosecuted for assault after, on December 5, 2019, upon belatedly being informed that his theater troupe canceled rehearsals, he became angry thinking he was being ignored and approached C (then 16 years old) walking on the street in Cheonan City around 10 p.m., forcefully grabbed the bag C was carrying on her back, and spat on it. The cases were tried together. However, since C withdrew her complaint, the first trial dismissed the charges, and the prosecution did not appeal, making the dismissal final.