Female Student Dies After Sexual Assault and Fall... Court Rules "School Not Liable"

Victim Left Unattended After Falling During Sexual Assault
Family Claims "Negligence in Safety Management Led to Inaction"
Court Rules "Difficult to Recognize Facility or Management Responsibility"

In connection with the death of a female student who fell from a college building on campus, the court has ruled that the school does not bear civil liability. The damages claim filed by the victim's family was not accepted.

Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on the 21st, the 16th Civil Division of the Incheon District Court (Presiding Judge Park Sungmin) ruled against the family of the deceased student, Ms. B, in their lawsuit seeking damages from the university. The family had claimed that the university failed in its duty to ensure campus safety and demanded 45 million won in compensation, but the court dismissed the claim.

The incident occurred in July 2022, when Ms. B, then a first-year student, died after falling 8 meters from a college building while being sexually assaulted by a male student, Mr. A (then 23 years old), at the same university. Mr. A left the scene without calling for help immediately after the incident and later partially admitted to the crime during a police investigation.

Mr. A was initially tried on charges of quasi-rape and murder, but the Supreme Court found no intent to kill. It upheld the lower court's ruling, recognizing only the charge of quasi-rape resulting in death and sentencing Mr. A to 20 years in prison.

After the incident, in February 2024, Ms. B's family filed a civil lawsuit totaling 800 million won against both Mr. A and the university. The amount and purpose of the claim were later partially adjusted, with the family ultimately seeking only 45 million won in compensation from the university. The lawsuit against Mr. A was concluded through a court-recommended settlement.

During the trial, the family argued, "The university has a responsibility to establish and implement specific safety management plans to protect students," and claimed, "The victim was left unattended for a long period after the incident, and the university's negligence in management contributed to the worsening of the outcome."

However, the court did not recognize the school's management responsibility. The court stated, "The university's decision not to install closed-circuit (CC) TV in the building was based on the judgment of a professional security company, and it is difficult to conclude that the university violated its legal obligation to ensure facility safety as a result."

The court further stated, "It cannot be definitively said that the university president violated a legal obligation to establish specific response plans for every risk on campus," and added, "It is difficult to find negligence on the part of the university regarding facility maintenance and safety."

This case, which involved both a sex crime and a death, caused significant social repercussions. At the time, Mr. A took Ms. B, who was heavily intoxicated, into the college building in the early morning hours, dragged her from the second to the fourth floor while attempting to commit the crime, after which Ms. B fell from a fifth-floor stairwell window and died. Ms. B was discovered by a passerby about two hours after the incident and was transported to a hospital, but ultimately passed away.

According to on-site forensic evaluations conducted by the National Forensic Service and experts such as Professor Lee Jeongbin, it was suggested that it was more likely that the victim fell due to external force rather than by her own actions.

Prosecutors charged Mr. A with "rape and murder," arguing that he continued his actions despite being aware of the possibility of the victim's death. However, the court did not recognize intent, and the murder charge was dismissed at every level of the trial.

A video file containing ambient noise from the scene, recorded by Mr. A at the time of the incident, was discovered, leading to a review of illegal filming charges. However, investigative authorities decided not to indict Mr. A on these charges due to insufficient evidence.