[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court overturned the second trial ruling that acquitted a naval captain accused of raping a subordinate female officer who had reported sexual violence by a superior in the same unit, on the grounds that the victim's testimony was questionable.
The court stated that dismissing the entire victim's testimony just because some parts were deemed unreliable was incorrect.
On the 31st, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Park Jeong-hwa) overturned the original ruling that acquitted Colonel A of the Navy (then Lieutenant Colonel at the time of the crime), who was charged with rape causing injury against a soldier, and remanded the case to the High Military Court.
The court stated, "The victim's testimony regarding the circumstances of the crime, particularly the key part that 'Defendant A, while drinking, pressed the upper arm near the shoulder with both hands, climbed onto the victim's body, forcibly kissed her, undressed her, and then raped her,' has been consistent from the investigative agency to the first trial court, and there is no irrationality or contradiction in the testimony itself based on the rules of experience."
The court pointed out, "Defendant A also admitted to kissing the victim and touching her chest 'on the bed' on the day of the incident. Therefore, even if the victim initially could not specify the crime scene as 'on the bed' and vaguely stated she was 'leaning on something like a sofa,' this cannot be used as a reason to reject the credibility of the victim's testimony."
Furthermore, "The victim's testimony is supported by specific statements from other persons involved in the incident," the court said. "The defendant's defense claims that the physical contact occurred naturally under the victim's request or consent, but the specific content is unnatural by common sense and lacks rationality based on the rules of experience. This circumstance can serve as indirect evidence supporting the credibility of the victim's testimony."
The court added, "Nevertheless, the original court rejected the credibility of the victim's testimony regarding the core facts of the indictment. This judgment violates logic and the rules of experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, which is a reason for reversal and remand."
After being commissioned as an officer in 2009, Junior Officer B (then First Lieutenant), assigned to the unit under the Navy's First Fleet Command where A was stationed in 2010, was repeatedly sexually assaulted and raped by Major C, the ship's artillery officer and B's direct superior.
B, who became pregnant due to the sexual assault and underwent an abortion, reported this to A, who instead of comforting B, lured her under pretexts and committed rape.
Despite continuing to serve after the incident, B eventually could not endure the distress, deserted her post in 2017, reported the abuse to military investigative authorities, and filed complaints against A and C.
A was charged with rape causing injury (rape causing post-traumatic stress disorder) for forcibly holding B's arm with both hands, pushing her down on the bed, and raping her after inviting her to his single officer quarters under the pretext of having tea in early December 2010.
C was charged with two counts of rape and ten counts of forcible molestation causing injury (rape causing injury and forcible molestation causing injury) against B, who served in the same unit.
The Navy Headquarters' Ordinary Military Court, which handled the first trial, found A guilty of rape causing injury and sentenced him to eight years in prison. C was also found guilty on all charges and sentenced to ten years in prison.
However, in the second trial at the High Military Court, both A and C were acquitted. The court reasoned that some parts of victim B's testimony contradicted facts, casting doubt on its credibility.
Regarding A, the second trial court stated, "The victim's testimony consistent with the indictment relies on memories about seven years after the crime, containing contradictions and inconsistencies with objective circumstances, making it difficult to trust the victim's memory itself. Conversely, the defendant's claims contradicting the victim's testimony appear more plausible based on objective circumstances and cannot be easily dismissed." The court concluded, "Therefore, even if the victim's testimony is not intentionally false, it is difficult to believe it as is," and acquitted A.
The court further stated, "Even if the victim's testimony is credible, it alone does not prove that the defendant used violence or threats to rape the victim."
It added, "According to the victim's testimony, the defendant's act of holding the victim's upper arm does not constitute violence sufficient to make resistance impossible or significantly difficult, nor is it likely that the defendant intended or recognized suppressing the victim's resistance through such acts."
For rape to be established, the violence or threats used must be sufficient to make the victim's resistance impossible or significantly difficult, which the court found lacking.
Regarding C, the second trial court stated, "The victim's testimony about the circumstances of the crime is not credible," and "Even according to the victim's testimony, it is difficult to see that the defendant used violence or threats sufficient to hinder the victim's resistance and molested her, nor can the defendant's acts be considered 'surprise molestation.'"
'Surprise molestation' refers to acts such as suddenly hugging or kissing the victim without their knowledge, exploiting an unexpected moment.
The court also stated regarding the rape causing injury charge, "The victim's testimony about the circumstances leading to going to the motel is inconsistent with objective evidence or circumstances and is difficult to believe," and "Even according to the victim's testimony, there was no violence or threat constituting the means of rape."
The second trial acquittals of A and C reached different conclusions at the Supreme Court.
At the Supreme Court, the key issues were whether the victim B's testimony was credible and whether the violence constituting the elements of rape or forcible molestation occurred.
Regarding A, as introduced earlier, the Supreme Court found the victim B's testimony consistent and ruled that rejecting the credibility of the core facts of the indictment due to some discrepancies in factual memory violated logic and the rules of experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, thus overturning the second trial ruling.
The background for this conclusion cited Supreme Court rulings stating that "the degree of conviction required to find guilt in a criminal trial must be beyond reasonable doubt, but this does not require excluding all possible doubts," and that "in rape cases where the victim's testimony is the sole evidence recognizing the indictment, the defendant's testimony being irrational and contradictory does not automatically become direct evidence recognizing the indictment, but such circumstances can support the credibility of the victim's testimony or serve as indirect evidence combined with the victim's testimony to support the indictment, depending on the judge's free evaluation."
Regarding the standard for determining whether violence constituting rape occurred, the Supreme Court ruling was cited: "Whether the perpetrator's violence or threats constituting rape occurred should be judged based on all circumstances, including the content and degree of violence or threats, the circumstances leading to the use of physical force, the relationship with the victim, and the situation during and after intercourse, focusing on the specific situation the victim faced at the time of intercourse. It should not be hastily concluded that the violence or threats did not significantly hinder the victim's resistance just because the victim could have left the scene before intercourse or did not resist with all her might afterward."
The court recognized the intent to rape, noting that A exploited B's mentally and physically weakened state after knowing B had been sexually assaulted by another superior in a hierarchical relationship.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court dismissed all appeals by the military prosecutor regarding C, upheld the acquittal, and confirmed the original ruling dismissing the electronic monitoring order request.
The court first cited a Supreme Court ruling stating, "In criminal trials, the recognition of guilt must be based on evidence that convinces the judge beyond reasonable doubt that the indictment is true. Without such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defendant."
It added, "Reviewing the reasons for the original ruling, there is no error in failing to conduct necessary investigations, violating logic and the rules of experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misapplying legal principles regarding the elements of rape causing injury and forcible molestation causing injury that affected the judgment."
Meanwhile, the court explained why it judged two sexual crime cases involving the same victim in the same unit differently.
The court stated, "The selection of evidence and evaluation of its probative value, which form the basis of fact-finding, fall within the discretion of the trial court as long as it does not exceed the limits of free evaluation of evidence," and "Even for similar crimes committed against the same victim in close temporal proximity, the specific circumstances of the crime, the relationship between the victim and the defendant, and the testimonies of the victim and other related parties may differ."
It continued, "Therefore, the trial court may judge the credibility of the victim's testimony and the establishment of the crime differently for each crime committed against the same victim in close temporal proximity, which aligns with the ideals of criminal procedure for substantive truth discovery and human rights protection."
The court noted, "Regarding the case where defendant A was charged with rape causing injury against the victim in this case around the same time as the indictment, the Supreme Court found an error in the original ruling that acquitted the defendant by denying the credibility of the victim's testimony and failing to conduct necessary investigations," and "However, the specific circumstances of the cases, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, and the victim's testimony differ between this case (B's case) and defendant A's case, so the credibility of the victim's testimony and the establishment of the crime based on that credibility may be judged differently."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
