Namyangju Law Firm | Client Accused in a Sexual Offense Case Receives an Acquittal

The client first met Ms. A, a high school student, through a KakaoTalk open chat room.

The two, who felt a mutual interest, had sexual relations.

However, their relationship gradually cooled afterward, and during that time, Ms. A learned that she had contracted a sexually transmitted infection.

Ms. A then filed a petition with the police, claiming that she had suffered bodily injury because of the client. However, Ms. A later filed a complaint against the client again on a charge of rape, and the client became a defendant.

Act on the Protection of Children and Youth against Sexual Abuse, Article 7 (Rape, Indecent Act by Compulsion, etc. against Children and Youth)
(1) A person who rapes a child or youth through violence or intimidation shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for at least five years.
(2) A person who commits, against a child or youth, any of the following acts through violence or intimidation shall be punished by imprisonment for a definite term of at least five years.
1. The act of inserting one's sexual organ into the inside of a body part such as the mouth or anus (excluding the sexual organ)
2. The act of inserting a part of a body such as a finger (excluding the sexual organ) or a tool into the sexual organ or anus
(3) A person who commits the offense under Article 298 of the Criminal Act against a child or youth shall be punished by imprisonment for a definite term of at least two years or by a fine of at least 10 million won but not more than 30 million won.
(4) A person who commits the offense under Article 299 of the Criminal Act against a child or youth shall be punished in accordance with paragraphs (1) through (3).
(5) A person who has sexual intercourse with a child or youth, or commits an indecent act against a child or youth, by deceit or coercion shall be punished in accordance with paragraphs (1) through (3).

In order to find the facts charged guilty solely on the basis of the victim's statement, the statement must carry such a high degree of probative value that there is virtually no room to doubt its truthfulness and accuracy, and in determining whether such probative value is present, one must comprehensively consider not only the rationality, consistency, and objective reasonableness of the victim's statement itself, but also personal factors such as the victim's character. (See Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 2012; Decision 2015Do15718, May 27, 2016; among others.)

In adjudicating a sexual offense case, the court must maintain a "gender-sensitive perspective" so that it understands the issue of gender discrimination in the context in which the case arose and realizes gender equality; therefore, lightly rejecting the probative value of a victim's statement in an individual and specific case without sufficiently considering the special circumstances in which the victim of the sexual offense is placed cannot be regarded as an assessment of evidence that follows the rules of logic and experience based on the ideals of justice and equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7709, October 25, 2018, among others); however, this does not mean that the probative value of a sexual offense victim's statement must be recognized without limitation, or that the facts charged must accordingly be found guilty unconditionally. (See Supreme Court Decision 2023Do13081, January 4, 2024.)

When Ms. A first visited the police station, she filed only a petition concerning the offense of bodily injury.

In addition, she stated to the officer who asked about the situation at the time that she "had sexual relations with the client by consent."

However, a short time later, Ms. A abruptly changed her mind and filed a complaint against the client on charges including rape.

The Namyangju law firm argued for acquittal, contending that the possibility that Ms. A's side had intentionally filed the complaint against the client could not be excluded.

Ms. A first stated to the police that she "had sexual relations by consent."

However, in the complaint she submitted several weeks later, she described the circumstances of the alleged harm in abstract terms, and in a subsequent investigation she described the circumstances of the harm in very specific detail.

The Supreme Court has stated in its precedents that "a memory of a fact that a person has witnessed or experienced may fade as time passes, but for it to become clearer than at first is exceptional; therefore, where the content of a victim's statement grows in stages and becomes more specific and rationalized over time, its credibility should be regarded as doubtful."

Ms. A's claims and statements became more specific over time in a direction unfavorable to the client, which was highly exceptional.

A police expert who analyzed Ms. A's account also assessed that it was difficult to exclude the possibility that some false statements were included.

In addition, during the trial, Ms. A avoided answering questions asking about specific circumstances related to the case and questions intended to impeach the contradictions in her statements.

The Namyangju law firm emphasized the case for acquittal by pointing out the inconsistencies in Ms. A's statements.

In a sexual offense case, there is no such thing as "conduct befitting a victim."

Because the reactions that a victim involved in a crime may show are so varied, the victim's conduct must not be defined within a particular frame.

However, the situation is different when the only evidence capable of proving the crime is the victim's statement. This is because that statement must be highly objective and reasonable.

In order to assess the objectivity and reasonableness of the statement, the circumstances before and after the incident, as well as the victim's conduct and reactions, must be examined closely.

While the two were in contact, Ms. A showed a very active attitude toward the client.

She also actively initiated various forms of physical contact with the client. Moreover, it was Ms. A who first requested the meeting on the day the incident occurred.

This is why the claim that the sexual relations took place under the client's coercion or pressure is difficult to accept readily.

Based on these circumstances, the Namyangju law firm argued that the client was not guilty.

A sexual offense case has somewhat different characteristics from other general criminal cases.

This is because a guilty verdict may be rendered on the basis of the victim's statement alone, even in the absence of clear direct evidence.

For this reason, one should not be complacent in the investigation or trial, assuming that there will be no charge or an acquittal simply because there is no evidence.

At the Namyangju law firm, a defense team with extensive trial experience provides systematic assistance to clients.

If you are troubled because you have become unintentionally involved in a sexual offense, please contact the Namyangju law firm.