"'Sexual Harassment in Mafia Game' vs 'Just Same-Sex Insults, Not Guilty' [Seocho-dong Legal Talk]"

1st Trial: "Valid Even If Same Gender... Acting and Mocking as If One Were a Man"

A woman in her 20s was fined in the first trial for sexually harassing an opponent in an online Mafia game. The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Pixabay]

Judge: Defendant, what is 'paedeurip'?

Defendant: It is an insult directed at one's parents.

Judge: Are you claiming that the victim provoked you to do that?

This is the story of a defendant in their 20s who was charged with sexual harassment after a verbal dispute in chat during an online game. On May 26 last year, Mr. A (29) was enjoying the 'Mafia game' on his mobile phone. Mafia is a game where citizens, unaware of each other's identities, try to find hidden mafia members through interrogation.

Mr. A was randomly paired with Mr. B as part of the 'citizen team.' However, as the game progressed, Mr. B thought the citizen team lost because of Mr. A's mistakes. He sent nearly 15 minutes of abusive chat messages to Mr. A.

After the game ended, Mr. A retaliated by sending a chat message implying he would have sexual intercourse with Mr. B's mother without contraception, and if a child were born, he would be the father. Both were female, and neither knew the other's gender.

Following Mr. B's report, Mr. A was prosecuted for 'obscenity using communication media.' Article 13 of the current Sexual Violence Punishment Act states that "if a person causes sexual discomfort or disgust to another through communication media with the purpose of arousing or satisfying their own or another's sexual desire, they shall be punished by imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to 20 million won."

During the trial, Mr. A and his lawyer argued, "It is true the defendant used abusive language, but it was not with the intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desire," and "It was merely an expression of displeasure in response to the victim's initial insults," claiming 'not guilty.' They said Mr. A only responded after receiving one-sided and continuous insults from Mr. B and was falsely blamed for the citizen team's loss.

They also argued "It is unacceptable to apply the Sexual Violence Punishment Act to acts between people of the same sex within the game."

Defense attorney: The defendant is a heterosexual woman with a boyfriend. She did not think the victim would interpret the chat content sexually, right?

Defendant: Yes

Defense attorney: The act mentioned in the chat is also impossible because the defendant is female, correct?

Defendant: Yes

On the other hand, Mr. B appeared in court as a witness and appealed, saying, "I felt (Mr. A's chat) was meant to cause sexual shame." He said he did not remember the insults he first sent but remembered Mr. A's messages because they were too shocking.

In the closing argument, Mr. A's lawyer claimed, "The 'sexual desire' in sexual crimes is important to judge the perpetrator's intent based on their gender," and "The mentioned act is impossible for a female defendant." Mr. A also stated in the final statement, "It happened during a dispute in the game and is unrelated to sexual satisfaction as a woman."

On the 20th, Judge Park Hyerim of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 13 sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 2 million won and ordered completion of a 5-hour sexual violence treatment program.

Judge Park stated, "The 'sexual desire' in Article 13 of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act includes psychological satisfaction such as sexually degrading the other party." She added, "(Even if the parties are of the same sex) it should not be viewed differently," emphasizing, "Considering the content of the insults, the defendant acted and mocked as if she were a man."

Judge Park added, "It is sufficiently recognized that the words causing disgust reached the victim," and "The defendant shows no remorse and has not reached a settlement with the victim," taking these into consideration. Mr. A appealed the first trial verdict.