Why is a convenience store owner in his 50s found not guilty after drinking with a part-timer and molesting her at a hotel?

Law "It is highly likely that the damage was inferred based on the circumstances after the fact... It is difficult to determine."

A convenience store owner who was put on trial for taking a drunk part-time worker to a hotel and sexually assaulting her was found not guilty.

The 12th Criminal Division of the Seoul Southern District Court acquitted Mr. A, a man in his 40s, who was indicted on charges of semi-forcible molestation under the Child and Adolescent Sexual Protection Act in December last year.

In October of last year, Mr. A was accused of drinking with the victim, Mr. B, a part-time worker at the convenience store he ran, then taking the intoxicated Mr. B to a hotel and molesting him by taking off his clothes.

Person A denied the charges.

He claimed, “I did remove the vomit-covered victim’s coat and top and bottom, but there was no intention to molest him.”

As for the reason why he did not come out of the room for about 30 minutes, he explained, "Mr. B vomited on the hotel floor, so we asked for understanding from the staff and tried to resolve the situation."

The court found that Mr. A was not guilty.

Considering the fact that the victim had no recollection of the situation at the time, it was believed that the possibility that the victim had guessed the damage in light of the circumstances after the fact could not be ruled out.

The court ruled, "There are suspicions that the indecent assault took place as alleged in the indictment, as the defendant's DNA was detected in the victim's underwear. However, as a result of checking the CCTV in the hotel lobby, there is a possibility that parts of the body were touched when the defendant supported the victim by putting his arms around his shoulders or lifting him up with his arms."

He added, "The victim claimed to have been naked after waking up, but considering that no DNA was detected inside the victim's underwear, it is difficult to determine molestation."

Attorney Park Seong-dong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "Whether or not the act was molested must be determined by comprehensively considering the circumstances of the act and the surrounding objective circumstances." He added, "We were able to obtain a good result by faithfully explaining the circumstances at the time, such as when the client revealed his identity to the lobby staff and left his contact information, making it difficult to believe that he was the person who committed the crime."

#Accident #Part-time job harassment #Why is the store owner innocent?

Park Seok-ho (haitai2000@ikbc.co.kr)

[View full article]
Why is a 50-year-old convenience store owner 'not guilty' of molesting a part-time worker at a hotel after drinking with him? (Shortcut)