Incomplete Elephant Puzzle, 'Seoul National University MeToo' Professor Acquitted in Citizen Jury Trial [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

A former Seoul National University professor, accused of touching the body parts of a graduate student, was acquitted in the first trial conducted as a citizen participation trial. The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] As the trial began, puzzle pieces spread out on the PPT screen. The prosecutor asked, "Can you tell what animal this is just from this?" The jurors shook their heads. As the screen advanced, the puzzle gradually came together. Although 11 out of about 70 puzzle pieces were missing, everyone could tell it was an 'elephant.'

The prosecutor emphasized, "In a criminal trial, a guilty verdict is given only when proven beyond a reasonable doubt," adding, "This does not mean there is no doubt at all or that all doubt is eliminated." He said, "(The puzzle with some pieces missing and the completed puzzle) makes no difference in recognizing it as an elephant. Please consider all the evidence together to determine whether the defendant was aware of and acted on the molestation."

◆National Participation Trial Held Three Years After 2019 Accusation

The national participation trial of former Seoul National University Spanish Language and Literature professor A, accused of forcibly molesting graduate student B who accompanied him for overseas academic conferences and research from 2015 to 2017, was held over two days starting on the 7th at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 29 (Presiding Judge Kim Seungjeong).

The prosecutor removed the puzzle from the screen and read the charges against former Professor A. There are three charges. ①In February 2015, during a research trip to Peru, he is accused of touching the crown of B’s head while B was sleeping in the front seat of a highway bus; ② In June 2017, during a conference visit to Spain, he is accused of lifting B’s skirt and touching a scar on the inside of her thigh; ③ On the same day as charge ②, during a walk, he is accused of forcibly inserting B’s arm into his own arm.

On the other hand, the defense attorney for former Professor A questioned, "This case is being highlighted based on the victim’s feelings at the time," and asked, "Does the crime change depending on the feelings experienced then?" He appealed to the jury, saying, "The judgment is not actually based on the victim’s feelings. If it were, the principle of legality would collapse," adding, "Even if something seems somewhat wrong, it does not automatically constitute a crime. Please keep in mind that the crime of forcible molestation must be strictly proven under the legal requirements."

◆Court: "Discomfort Acknowledged, But Not Forcible Molestation"… Not Guilty in First Trial

During the trial, former Professor A’s side denied the charges, stating that "pressing the crown was a form of acupressure, touching the thigh was touching a bandaged area where B had a burn, and the linking of arms was not forcibly done."

B, who appeared as a witness, said, "At the time, I was very embarrassed, uncomfortable, and felt dirty," emphasizing that she believes the person who told her to think of him as a father should no longer be an educator. She also explained that she did not immediately raise complaints for fear of difficulty graduating, tried to avoid the incident, but after continued stalking by former Professor A, she decided to report and accuse him belatedly in 2019.

Based on these claims, the prosecutor requested the court to sentence former Professor A to six months in prison, saying, "The situation at the time of the crime must be comprehensively judged." Meanwhile, former Professor A pleaded, "I did my best to guide, but this incident has caused me deep doubts and disillusionment about life and relationships."

On the 8th, after about four hours of deliberation, the seven-member jury unanimously delivered a 'not guilty' verdict. The court then sentenced former Professor A to not guilty based on this.

The court stated, "The victim’s testimony is inconsistent and contradictory, and considering KakaoTalk messages sent immediately after the incident, it is difficult to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt based solely on the victim’s testimony." "It is acknowledged that the defendant touched the victim’s crown and that the victim felt discomfort, but this cannot be regarded as forcible molestation."

B’s representative announced on the morning of the 9th, "The victim in this case cannot accept the first trial’s not guilty verdict" and expressed intention to appeal.