36-Year-Old Korean Man Acquitted By Court After Raping 12-Year-Old

Recently, a case of sexual assault in South Korea has enraged netizens worldwide after the court passed down a “not guilty” verdict to the perpetrator.

The Incident

The parent of the victim, a 12-year-old girl, posted about the situation on an online community site on January 5, seeking help from the public. In the post, the parent, “A,” revealed On May 28, 2023, their daughter was sexually assaulted by a 36-year-old man. The man had gotten in touch with the victim through a chat app.

The perpetrator picked up the girl from the underground parking of her apartment and drove her to an uninhabited motel. “A” explained in the post that despite feeling uneasy while going with the man, their daughter was scared to run away, fearing she might be hurt. The man drove her to a garage-like site and then instructed her to follow him upstairs. She realized it was a motel after spotting a bed in the room and immediately got scared, asking to go home.

However, the perpetrator tied her up with handcuffs and allegedly used multiple sexual tools on her. The man also reportedly used a whip to beat her, grabbed her hair, and forced her to have sex. After committing the crime, he allegedly dropped her off four stops away from her house.

Initially, “A” was hesitant to report the incident due to the daughter’s fear of retaliation, but they eventually reported it to the police three days later. The man was caught less than a month later, in June.

Why was the man declared not guilty during the first trial?

According to the ruling shared by “A” in their post, the prosecution had charged the perpetrator for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, Article 7 (Rape of, or Commision of Indecent Acts by Compulsion on Minors under Age of 13). The prosecutors requested a 12-year prison sentence, but instead, the court found the man “not guilty.”

The verdict shared by “A” | JoongAng Ilbo

The victim’s parent mentioned that the perpetrator seemed to be financially affluent and had hired the same lawyer who defended Cho Ju Bin, one of the prime criminals involved in the Nth Room case.

Cho Joo Bin | The New York Times

The published ruling of the court said that the defendant claimed he was not aware that the victim was under the age of 13. The court took a few things into consideration regarding this claim: a) the victim’s height of 158 cm, which is the average physique of an adult female b) her voice and clothing during the incident, and c) the fact that the victim had told the man she was 14 when they met.

Additionally, the court’s verdict stated that the defendant’s DNA was not found in the victim’s body, the victim’s DNA was not on any of the sexual tools claimed to have been used in the crime, and her DNA was found on one sex device that was not mentioned in the victim statement.

Based on the first set of considerations, the court ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the girl was a minor. The second set of findings made it difficult to rule that the defendant had sexually assaulted the victim. So, both the provisions of Article 7 of the Special Act on Punishment of Sexual Crimes, i.e., “minor under 13” and “act of rape,” were left unproven in the court, leading to the “not guilty” verdict.

Aftermath

The trial lasted six months, during which the victim’s mental health declined significantly. “A” mentioned that they had to leave their job and are currently suffering from financial difficulties. They also had to move and transfer their daughter to a new school. As a single parent, “A” is struggling to keep them afloat. The child, on the other hand, couldn’t handle the stress of the trial and has been constantly causing self-harm. It escalated so dangerously that she was admitted to a closed ward in a psychiatric hospital. Her parent is currently prohibited from visiting her.

Netizens’ reactions

While netizens worldwide are furious at this miscarriage of justice, one particular netizen, “B,” responded to the parent’s plea for legal assistance. “B” mentioned that instead of the charge that the prosecutor pressed, where it is crucial to prove the defendant had knowledge of the victim being under 13, Article 305 (2) could be utilized better.

The newly-added clause (added on May 19, 2020, after the Nth Room scandal), states that an adult over 19 years old having a sexual relationship with someone under 16 years old is considered a crime of Statutory Rape and Indecent Acts with Minor. In this case, the argument of consent from the minor victim is irrelevant.

“B” also responded to the victim’s parent, saying that they could get in touch and if all the details in their post were true, B’s wife, who is a lawyer at a big firm, could help them out.