Masseur Who Put Hand Inside Customer's Underwear... Also Sentenced to Prison in Appeal Trial

A massage therapist who molested a female customer during a body correction massage was sentenced to prison again in the appellate court.

The Criminal Division 2 of the Gwangju District Court (Chief Judge Kim Young-ah) on the 30th dismissed both the appeal of massage therapist A (46) and the prosecution. A was indicted for violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, etc. (molestation by abuse of authority at work) and was sentenced to six months in prison in the first trial.

The court ordered A to complete 40 hours of a sexual violence treatment program and imposed a three-year employment restriction at institutions related to children, adolescents, and persons with disabilities, the same as in the original trial.

A was charged with touching the body of female customer B, who was lying on a massage bed at a spinal correction center in Gwangju in September 2021.

It was investigated that A put his hand inside B’s underwear without her consent, claiming he would perform lymph node massage.

When B protested immediately after the massage, A responded, "I personally felt drawn to you, so I relieved it this way. I hope you don’t feel burdened."

However, during the trial, A’s side argued, "We obtained consent for therapeutic purposes and checked a lump on the inner thigh fascia, but we did not put our hand inside the underwear or molest her."

Earlier, the first trial court rejected A’s claim, stating, "Molesting a customer during massage business is very serious considering the degree and area. The circumstances after the crime, such as not admitting wrongdoing, are also unfavorable. Imprisonment is inevitable."

The appellate court also stated, "We recognize the credibility of B’s testimony and can sufficiently acknowledge that A molested B. The parts of B’s testimony pointed out by A are mostly minor or detailed matters. They do not exceed the level of memory loss or confusion that can naturally occur over time," and added, "There is no reason to consider maintaining the original judgment as clearly unjust."