[ad_1]
[연합뉴스]
Mr. A, who was working as a staff assistant in the navy, took her hand and said, “What is this?” To a young man who came to report on work last year. Mr. A, who grabbed his minor’s left hand with both hands and rubbed the back of his hand with his thumb for about 10 seconds, was brought to trial on charges of forcibly harassing him using a relationship under his command to work.
Mr. A insisted in court that he “had not done the above”, but the court refused. He admitted that Mr. A touched the back of his hand for about 10 seconds, saying that the victim’s statement was credible. This was also considered to be the case for the use of business power.
However, both the first and second trials convicted Mr. A to be innocent. The reason was that it was not enough to say that Mr. A’s behavior caused shame or sexual disgust to the average and average person, and reached the level of contrary to the concept of good sexual morality. This means that touching the back of your hand can make you feel uncomfortable, but it is difficult to consider it sexual harassment. Furthermore, it was concluded that it was insufficient to say that there was an intention to harass Mr. A.
Supreme Court “Judgment of the centripetal mind, difficult to accept”
The second division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Park Sang-ok) had a different idea. Mr. A’s actions were sexually motivated and the case was returned to the Superior Military Court.
The judges noted the victim’s statement that “prior to this incident, it was difficult due to the sexual harassment words or actions of Mr. A”. I saw that there was no reason to touch the back of a young woman’s hand for 10 seconds other than sexual intentions in an office with only two.
In particular, the judge emphasized, “it is not possible to distinguish whether sexual shame is caused only on the basis of specific parts of the body that have been in contact with the victim, nor does it constitute a crime of forced harassment only if Mr. Performed additional sexual behavior Mr. A’s behavior was determined not only when the victim did not want it, but also as a crime that could cause sexual embarrassment or displeasure to the general public.
In a recent sex crimes case, he was acquitted in the first and second trials, but there are more and more cases in which the Supreme Court destroys and returns for the purpose of pleading guilty. In 2018, the first part of the Supreme Court returned the case of acquitting a man in his 40s who hugged and kissed his girlfriend who had notified their breakup. The first and second trials did not see it as forced harassment in which the bride did not particularly resist. However, the Supreme Court ruled that “considering the circumstances in which the bride did not resist to quickly return the man, it is a question of forced harassment.”
In August, a Supreme Court ruling was issued saying that the boss’s actions by grabbing an employee’s wrist and saying, “Let’s go to the motel,” after dinner was over, amounted to assault. The second trial found that “it is difficult to say that only the parts of the body that he touched cause shame or sexual disgust”, but the Supreme Court 2 said: “The act of taking the doll while going to the motel already contains sexual motives.” Even at this time, the judge noted, “it is not possible to distinguish whether or not to cause sexual embarrassment based solely on the specific part of the body with which it is in contact.” In all three cases, the head judge was Supreme Justice Park Sang-ok.
Reporter Lee Ga-young [email protected]
[ad_2]
