'Stretching Dopa Jepanhaeng' Female College Student: "Would the Judge Have Filed a Complaint?" [Seocho-dong Legal Talk]

"Honorable presiding judge, have you ever undergone root canal treatment for a cavity? If a tooth weakened by the treatment breaks while eating candy, would you demand compensation from the person who gave you the candy and file a criminal complaint?"

Recently, in a courtroom on the 4th floor of the Seoul Central District Court, university student Ms. A (34, female) asked the presiding judge this question during an appeal trial. She is accused of injuring Ms. B (21, female), who was taking an 'acting practice' class together, by pressing hard on her back in a lecture room at a university in Seoul on March 15, 2021, while she was enrolled.

The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Pixabay]

They have an age difference of more than 10 years and had met only about twice, including the day of the class. Before the class, they decided to help each other with leg-splitting stretches to improve flexibility. Ms. B placed her upper body on the floor and spread her legs apart, while Ms. A pressed on her back. At that moment, Ms. B injured the muscles on her left thigh, resulting in an injury requiring seven weeks of medical treatment.

When Ms. A refused Ms. B's demand for compensation, Ms. B filed a complaint against Ms. A. The prosecution indicted Ms. A on charges of negligent injury. The prosecution pointed out, "As a person assisting with stretching, there was a duty of care to proceed safely to prevent injury to the other party." On the other hand, Ms. A denied all charges.

The first trial sentenced Ms. A to a fine of 1.5 million won. The first trial court stated, "The testimonies of the victim Ms. B and the witness are quite detailed and consistent," and "Considering the circumstances of the accident, it appears the defendant applied sudden excessive force to Ms. B." The testimony of another student who witnessed the accident was a key piece of evidence.

Ms. A appealed. In the appeal court, her lawyer said, "Ms. B had a record of injuring the muscles on the back of her thigh two years ago. Ms. B did not inform the defendant of her previous injury in advance."

He added, "The defendant only assisted with the stretching normally," and "We recruited two other people who are not acquainted to reenact the situation. Even when they ran and pressed down, no injuries occurred." A video of this reenactment was also submitted to the court.

The lawyer added, "Even if guilt is recognized, the defendant is a first-time offender. Considering that the degree of breach of duty of care is not significant, we ask for leniency."

Ms. A argued her innocence by comparing the situation to that of a dental patient. She said, "If a person knows their tooth condition is poor after treatment and the doctor warns them to be careful, that person should not eat candy given by someone else considering the possibility of tooth breakage," and "The leg-splitting stretch is the same. I did not apply more force than a normal stretch. If it were not a case like Ms. B who had previous injuries, even if the pressure on the back was stronger, she would not have been injured."

On the other hand, the prosecutor said, "The causal relationship that Ms. B was injured by the defendant's actions was recognized in the first trial. The extent of the injury is also not minor," and requested the dismissal of Ms. A's appeal.

The presiding judge said, "This case is an accident that occurred during stretching," and asked how much age difference Ms. A has with other students and why she entered school at a relatively late age.

He added, "I will review the case again. What I am most curious about is whether there is a manual related to stretching," and requested, "Please check and submit materials regarding the methods and standards for the related postures." Ms. A's side said they would secure and submit the materials. The appeal verdict is scheduled for the 19th of next month.