[ad_1]
“If you can’t pay 600,000 won, you’ll have sex,” the army commander threatened the teenagers … ‘Innocent’ delivered
Park Jung-mi, Busan.com Reporter [email protected]
Check-in: 2020-11-15 10:09:18Review: 2020-11-15 10:45:05Published: 2020-11-15 10:39:36
Busan Ilbo DB
Army Major A contacted him after seeing a conditional meeting text posted by the 10th Ms B’s Social Network Service (SNS) in July last year. He sent the purchase price twice, but when Mrs B replied only once, Mr A persistently demanded to return all the money he gave her. After that, when Ms B posted a post on social media that said “I am borrowing 500,000 won in a hurry,” A loaned 600,000 won and asked for sex on behalf of interest on the overdue payment. Mr. A took a photo of Ms. B’s house, sent it as a message, and kept calling and pressing. Mr. A exercised his power to commit adultery on child and adolescent victims, but was brought to trial on suspicion of ending an attempt.
The military prosecutors saw that Mr. A forced him to have sexual relations with “ power ” and applied the adultery charges, such as the hierarchies under the Acheong Law, to the trial, but the High Military Court found the hierarchies of A innocent and other charges of adultery and changed the crime. He was convicted of attempting to commit coercion. It appears that Mr. A was trying to have sex with Ms. B on behalf of his interests, but in light of the fact that he did not promise a specific time and place, it was just a “vague idea.”
But the Supreme Court thought differently. The third chamber of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 15th that it broke the court case, that he was found not guilty of violating the law on sexual protection of children and young people (adultery, as hierarchies), and returned the case to the Superior Military Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the court case, saying: “The fact that the time and place were not decided is an important matter in determining whether the crime plan was specific or whether the defendant’s actions were a means of having sex.” .
The Supreme Court also noted that “the defendant may be considered to have exercised the power to overwhelm the victim’s free will for the important reason that the decision to have sex would make from the victim’s point of view.”
The judge pointed out that among the actions carried out by Mr. A, he sent a message requesting sexual relations for delinquency. The court ruled that returning the money and forcing a choice between sex was no different than forcing Ms B to have sex without the possibility of reimbursement.
Mr. A was convicted by the military court on the charge of having a “conditional encounter” with Ms. B (prostitution under sub-qing law), and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling.
Park Jung-mi, Busan.com Reporter [email protected]
