One of Two Judges Does Not Attend 'Gender Sensitivity Training'

The Participation Rate of Chief Judges is Even Lower at 42.1%
Need to Consider Measures to Enhance Judges' Gender Sensitivity

It was revealed that one out of two judges in the trial panel did not participate in the 'gender sensitivity mandatory education.'

Image unrelated to the article content. [Photo by Pixabay]

According to the data on 'Gender Sensitivity Education Participation Status by Judicial Career' submitted by the Court Administration Office to Lee Tan-hee, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, over the past five years, the participation rate of judges in gender sensitivity education showed a continuous decline: ▲2018 (44.5%) ▲2019 (40.5%) ▲2020 (35.8%). After COVID-19, the rates slightly increased to ▲2021 (53.3%) ▲2022 (51.8%) ▲as of July 2023 (53.6%), but still remained around half.

The participation rate in gender sensitivity education among chief judges (with over 15 years of experience), who guide the legal interpretation direction of cases, was even lower. The rates were ▲2018 (43.1%) ▲2019 (43.9%) ▲2020 (26.0%) ▲2021 (58.1%) ▲2022 (42.1%), falling short of half.

The Judicial Research and Training Institute conducts annual gender sensitivity education for judges with more than five years of court experience in accordance with the Framework Act on Gender Equality. The education covers topics such as 'Beyond Gender Equality ? Diversity and a Harmonious Society,' 'Balanced Gender Equality Awareness Required of Judges,' 'Gender Equality from the Perspective of Judicial Vocation,' 'For Judges’ Balanced Gender Sensitivity,' and 'Judgment and Gender.'

The Court Administration Office explained the low participation rate by stating, "Gender sensitivity education by judicial career is usually conducted over two years, so the participation rate is structurally around 50%," and added, "We have integrated the mandatory annual education on the 'Four Major Violence Prevention' and gender sensitivity education." However, current law does not provide grounds for integrating the Four Major Violence Prevention education with gender sensitivity education. When this was pointed out, the Court Administration Office stated, "This year, separate gender sensitivity education will be conducted for all court staff nationwide, including judges, independently from the Four Major Violence Prevention education."

Previously, in 2005, in a case where a karaoke bar operator defendant was charged with raping a helper working at his karaoke bar, the second trial court acquitted the defendant, stating that "the plaintiff did not show reactions as a victim."

The court explained the sentencing rationale based on points such as 'the plaintiff remained in the karaoke bar even though the defendant left,' and 'the plaintiff did not tell the two people who entered the karaoke bar after the incident about the rape.'

However, the Supreme Court overturned and remanded the Gwangju High Court’s ruling, stating, "Whether the perpetrator’s violence or threats constituting rape occurred must be judged comprehensively based on all circumstances, including the relationship with the victim and subsequent situations, using the specific situation the victim was in at the time of intercourse as the standard."

Lee Tan-hee said, "Only judges with gender sensitivity can consider the victim’s situation and perspective, which can prevent lenient punishments such as excessive empathy toward the defendant," and added, "The court must seriously consider measures to improve not only the participation rate in education but also the effectiveness of the education so that judges can cultivate gender sensitivity."