The verdict of the second trial reprimanded by the Supreme Court, “It is not like a person being harassed”

Judge Min Yoo-sook repatriated the sexual harassment conviction at the second trial. [뉴스1]

“It is not reasonable to point out that victimhood does not appear.”

The Supreme Court reprimanded and returned the victims of sexual harassment, reprimanding the court case for acknowledging innocence on the grounds that the ‘victim’ did not appear.

The 3rd Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Min Yoo-sook) said: “We cannot reject the victim’s statement that the victim does not show the reaction that he should show. He also pointed out that there was also a lack of investigation of evidence. legal in the process of annulment of the guilt of the first trial in innocence.

The forced harassment case between a convenience store owner (victim) and an employee of a convenience store company (the defendant) was convicted at the first trial. However, in the appeal trial, he pleaded not guilty and the Supreme Court destroyed the case again last month because of fault. What is ‘not asking for victimhood’ that the Supreme Court emphasized?

The case, in which the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 4 million won at the first trial, took place between A, a convenience store owner, and B, an employee of a convenience store company. Mr. B, who generally liked Mr. A, approached the victim who was alone in a store and was accused of touching her head, hugging her neck, and kissing her face despite the victim’s refusal ( forced harassment).

The first decision of the trial was similar to the purpose of the Supreme Court decision. ▶ The victim’s statement was consistent ▶ The victim had no false reason to report ▶ The two contacted a lot, but they weren’t dating and there were many business contacts ▶ Considering that Mr. A felt sexual embarrassment due to Mr. B As a result, a fine of 4 million won was imposed.

This photo has nothing to do with the incident. [중앙포토]

However, the trial of the second trial was different. In the second trial, the charge of alleging that Mr. A was subjected to another forced harassment even before the crime was not prosecuted, and the appearance of the victim on closed circuit (CC) TV, who was photographed between the two after the harassment, it was “unpleasant”. He also noted that it does not appear to be the attitude of a person that just happened. It’s that Mr. A is not a victim.

The appellate court ruled that Mr. B knew a lot of private information about Mr. A, and that there were many calls on weekends and at night between the two and that, contrary to the claims of the victims, there was no one ‘Kaul relationship’ between the owner of the convenience store and the employee of the convenience store company. In addition, he was acquitted for showing Mr. A laughing in the process of physical contact between Mr. A and Mr. B (Mr. A claims to laugh to no avail), saying: “It seems you are playing a joke in a relationship rational, not forced harassment. ”

The Supreme Court did not accept the sentence of this second trial. As a victim, you cannot be recognized as a victim only if you show a specific reaction. In contrast to the fact that the victim’s statement was consistent from the beginning of the investigation, the fact that the defendant’s statement continued to change was the basis for the victim’s high credibility.

Lawyer Oh Sun-hee (Hye-myung Law Firm), who was in charge of the sexual violence case during the prosecution, said: “If there are 100 damages in a sex crime case, the reactions of the victims can appear from differently in 100 ways. ” Said.

Judge Min noted that “the allegation that the victim’s lack of ‘victimhood’ is not appropriate because of the victim’s actions and actions,” he said about the victim who apologized to the perpetrator the day after the rape. Professor Choi Seong-ho of Kyung Hee University said in his book “What is the victim?”: “If you establish a typical and ideal victim image and do not fit it, it cannot be justified to quickly suspect that it does not he’s a victim. ”

Reporter Park Tae-in [email protected]