Hiding Sexual Assault Victim at Home and Saying "Don't Testify"... Prosecutors Found Her Themselves

Defendant on trial for rape
Obstructed testimony of cohabiting victim witness
Prosecutor personally conducts home search
Additional investigation after separating perpetrator

The public prosecutor in charge of the trial discovered that the rapist was obstructing the victim's testimony during the court proceedings and, in an unusual move, obtained a search warrant from the court to investigate the truth, ultimately leading to a guilty verdict. This case is regarded as a precedent where the prosecution and the court directly intervened to protect the victim and uncover the facts in a sexual violence case involving close relations where separating the perpetrator was difficult.

According to reporting by the Legal Times on the 21st, the Criminal Division 2 of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office Eastern Branch (Chief Prosecutor Cheon Heon-ju) recently confirmed that Mr. A, who was on trial for rape, used the fact that he was cohabiting with the victim Ms. B to obstruct her attendance as a witness.

Mr. A was prosecuted last year on charges of raping Ms. B, with whom he was living. Ms. B reported the sexual assault to the police immediately after the incident, but when the trial began, she did not appear as a witness. The court sent multiple witness summonses to Ms. B, but each time they were returned due to closed doors or unknown recipient. Mr. A, the defendant living with Ms. B, stated in court, "I will deliver the witness summons to Ms. B and tell her to appear," but in subsequent hearings, he claimed, "(Ms. B) is not feeling well and does not leave the house." Ms. B did not have a mobile phone registered in her name, making it difficult for the prosecution to contact her directly.

After the trial stalled for seven months, public prosecutor Ahn Tae-min of the Eastern Branch obtained a search warrant and personally sought Ms. B's whereabouts. Considering that Mr. A and Ms. B were cohabiting, they decided to locate Ms. B by searching Mr. A's residence. When they searched Mr. A's home, they found Ms. B, who said she was unaware that the court had summoned her as a witness due to Mr. A's interference. The prosecution handed the witness summons directly to Ms. B and investigated the facts. Subsequently, Ms. B testified in court that "I was not raped," but during additional prosecution questioning, she confessed, "I perjured myself in court at A's request."

According to Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court may authorize searches of the defendant's person, property, or residence when related to the case. When a witness fails to appear, it is common to impose fines or issue a warrant for detention, and it is rare for the prosecution to conduct a search directly. Since a witness summons must be served to impose fines or issue a detention warrant, and Ms. B had not been served, the court unusually issued a search warrant to locate the victim. Mr. A was found guilty of rape in the first trial. Separately, the prosecution indicted Mr. A and Ms. B for perjury solicitation and perjury, respectively.

Attorney Oh Sun-hee (51, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 37) of the law firm Hyemyeong, a former prosecutor, said, "In cases of sexual violence involving close relationships such as lovers or family, the victim may report the incident immediately after it occurs while emotionally distressed but may retract their statements during investigation and trial due to psychological pressure," adding, "The court and prosecution have an obligation to view the case from the perspective of protecting the victim."

Attorney Won Eulim (35, 10th Bar Exam) of the law office Uirim said, "When the victim is economically dependent on the perpetrator, it is easy for the facts of the victimization to be concealed," and added, "If the victim has a special relationship with the perpetrator, it is necessary to scrutinize whether the victim's statements truly reflect their sincere feelings."

Reporter Lim Hyun-kyung, Legal Times

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