As Controversy Grows, Police State "There Was Sufficient Plausibility"
Prosecutors Decide Not to Prosecute on Indecent Exposure Charges
A new claim has been raised alleging similar victimization by the Dongtan Police Station, which is under suspicion for coercive investigations related to sexual crimes. This is the story of a man in his 20s who was booked and sent to the prosecution simply for wearing short shorts and squatting down. The incident occurred around August of last year. At that time, Ms. A, a woman in her 60s, was walking her dog near Yeongcheon-dong, Hwaseong, when she happened to encounter Mr. B, a man in his 20s. Mr. B squatted down and petted his dog. After witnessing this, Ms. A reported to the police that "a man touched my dog while exposing certain private parts."
As Hwaseong Dongtan Police Station faced criticism for coercively investigating an innocent man in his 20s as a female restroom sexual assault suspect, a post from a citizen claiming to have suffered similar harm previously has surfaced. [Photo by Asia Economy DB]
Subsequently, the police booked Mr. B on charges of public indecency and summoned him for investigation. The investigation revealed that Mr. B was wearing only shorts without underwear, and the shorts were notably short. During the police investigation, Mr. B denied the charges, stating, "I did pet Ms. A's dog, but I never intentionally showed my genitals," but the police believed the evidence was sufficient to prosecute him. However, the prosecution dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence.
Five days after the 'Dongtan Gym Bathroom Incident' involving Mr. B, his parents posted a message titled "Our child experienced the same thing last year" on the Dongtan Police Station's website bulletin board on the 28th of last month, criticizing the police. [Photo by Dongtan Police Station website]
Afterward, Mr. B's parents criticized the police by posting on the Dongtan Police Station's website bulletin board on the 28th of last month, five days after the 'Dongtan Gym Bathroom Incident,' with the title "Our child experienced the same thing last year." In their post, Mr. B's parents stated, "Our son, who just returned from military service, was accused of sexual harassment. The presumption of innocence was disregarded, and during the investigation, without any evidence, he was coerced into a false confession through suggestive questioning and sexually humiliating remarks from fellow investigators, which we only learned about later," adding, "Ask yourselves if you are qualified to be police officers when you label someone a criminal and treat them as such."
Furthermore, Mr. B's parents claimed that during the initial investigation, the police had Mr. B wear the shorts and confirmed that his genitals were not exposed at all, yet still made sexually humiliating remarks. As the controversy spread, the police stated that this case is fundamentally different from the 'Dongtan Gym Bathroom Incident.' They explained that their decision was based on the sufficient plausibility between the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage and the complainant's testimony.
A police official said, "Considering the scene on CCTV where the victim was startled and ran away, along with the victim's testimony, the charges were deemed sufficiently substantiated," adding, "Therefore, we decided to send the case with a prosecution recommendation." Regarding the prosecution's decision to dismiss the case, the official explained, "For public indecency charges to be established, there must be intent. The prosecution seems to have concluded that even if the genitals were visible, there was no intent."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
