'Disability Exploitation and Surveillance Slave Allegation' Case... Supreme Court, 'Not Guilty' Verdict Overturned and Remanded

Cleared of Disability Discrimination Act Violation Charges After 6 Years

A monk, the defendant in the so-called 'Temple Slave Case,' was acquitted of charges of violating the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities after six years at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no discrimination and that malice was not proven.

The Supreme Court Criminal Division 2 (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) on the 4th overturned the original sentence of 8 months imprisonment against monk A, who was prosecuted for violating the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and other charges, and remanded the case to the Seoul Northern District Court (2023Do2982).

A, the head monk of a temple in Seoul, was accused of making a victim with a level 3 intellectual disability perform labor such as Buddhist services, prayers, sweeping the yard, mowing the lawn, snow removal, and various temple construction works from April 2008 to December 2017 without paying approximately 13 million won in wages. He was charged with maliciously exploiting the victim financially due to the disability.

The Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities stipulates that "no one shall financially exploit a person with a disability in private spaces, homes, facilities, workplaces, or communities due to their disability." It also provides for criminal punishment if the prohibited discriminatory acts are malicious.

The first trial sentenced A to one year in prison, and the second trial sentenced him to eight months.

Both the first and second trials judged that "A exploited the victim financially due to the disability by making the intellectually disabled victim work without paying wages, which constitutes malicious discriminatory behavior."

However, the Supreme Court reversed this judgment.

The court stated, "There is no evidence to recognize that among the temple residents such as trainees, senior monks, and monks, only non-disabled persons were paid wages, or that the disabled victim was assigned labor such as sweeping the yard and mowing the lawn in a discriminatory manner compared to non-disabled persons," adding, "This is a representative circumstance where it is difficult to acknowledge the existence of discriminatory acts due to disability under Article 49, Paragraph 1 of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities."

The Supreme Court also judged that it is difficult to conclude that there was 'malice.'

△ A had the victim with intellectual disability live at the temple for 30 years since 1985 without receiving any compensation from the victim’s parents or family, and rather treated the victim as a trainee for 10 years and as a senior monk for 20 years; △ beyond simply covering the victim’s living expenses, A acted as a de facto guardian, bearing various costs amounting to tens of millions of won, including surgery fees, hospitalization fees, injury insurance premiums, domestic and overseas travel expenses, and overseas pilgrimage expenses; △ A was acquitted of charges related to violating the Act on Real Name Registration of Real Estate Ownership concerning real estate worth about 200 million won purchased under the victim’s name; △ the real estate previously purchased under the victim’s name was actually exercised by the victim as the owner; and △ the costs A bore for the victim over 30 years far exceeded the approximately 130 million won in unpaid wages stated in the indictment.

The court further stated, "Based solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it cannot be considered that 'malice' as defined in Article 49, Paragraph 2 of the former Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities has been sufficiently proven."

Oh Young-shin (55, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 28), lead attorney at Law Firm Yeoui who led the remand, said, "This ruling provides interpretative standards for ambiguous and unclear criminal elements such as discrimination due to disability and malice." However, she added, "The dictionary definition of 'malice' is 'having an evil mind intending to harm or hate others,' which is a subjective emotional expression. Since its meaning can vary depending on perspective and it is unclear at what level it becomes subject to criminal punishment, it is questionable whether 'malice' can be judged by the standards presented by the Supreme Court, as it is a moral and abstract term."

Park Su-yeon, Legal Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.