The judge’s mixed judgment over the reliability of the only evidence’victim’s statement’
The decisive factor is the ‘Kakao Talk content’ exchanged between the victim and other friends.
A heavy sentence of 18 years in prison for a man in his 60s who was accused of forcibly molesting a girl, a neighbor’s friend of his young granddaughter, over several years was overturned in an appeals court.
This is because the judgments of the first and second trials differed over the credibility of the victim’s statement, which is almost the only evidence of the case and the key to determining guilt or innocence.
According to the legal community on the 8th, Mr. A (67) was handed over to trial in April of last year on four charges, including violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Violence Crimes (similar sexual activity with a minor under the age of 13). In January 2016, he was accused of forcibly molesting Miss B (then 6 years old) of a neighbor’s house who came to her house to play with her granddaughter. In addition, he tried to rape Miss B three times in 2018 and 2019, but failed, and was also accused of similar sexual acts against Miss B at home in 2020. The charge of filming Miss B’s body with a mobile phone was also included in the indictment.
The prosecution brought Mr. A to court, saying that Mr. A committed the crime after buying favor with her by giving her pocket money or snacks by taking advantage of the fact that Ms. B’s nurturing environment was weak and that she was a friend and neighbor of her granddaughter. At the trial, Mr. A’s side completely denied her charges, saying, “The victim’s testimony is not credible.”
The Wonju Branch of the Chuncheon District Court, which was in charge of the first trial, judged that Miss B’s statement had sufficient credibility, citing various grounds. Grounds include consistency in statements, very specific and abundant statements of key spatial and temporal characteristics, specific content that cannot be explained without experience, the fact that specific answers were not elicited during the investigation process, and the circumstances of the report being natural. all. The court sentenced Mr. A to 18 years in prison and ordered to attach an electronic tracking device (electronic anklet) for 20 years with compliance requirements such as prohibition of access to victims and 80 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Mr. A appealed, and at the appeal trial, he repeated the same argument and complained of injustice.
Recently, the Chuncheon Court of the Seoul High Court overturned the lower court sentenced to 18 years in prison and acquitted him. The order to attach the electronic anklet for 20 years was also canceled and the prosecution’s request for the attachment order was dismissed. The judge concluded that it was difficult to be certain that all of the facts were true enough to leave no room for reasonable doubt in the victim’s statement, even though “I have consulted suspicions that there may have been inappropriate sexual contact.”
The decisive factor in making such a judgment by the appellate court was the ‘KakaoTalk conversation contents’ between the victim and Miss C, another friend of Mr. A’s granddaughter, submitted to the appellate court. In November of last year, after the trial of the first trial, when Miss C asked about the case, Miss B sent a message saying, “I reported it as a lie because I didn’t like Mr. A, I really didn’t know that I would go to prison.”
The court found that the victim’s remarks were expressed to the effect that some of the previous statements were somewhat exaggerated, and that the circumstances in which Miss C contacted Miss B and the contents of the questions showed some suspicious circumstances. However, as Miss B denied writing and sending the message itself, it was difficult to ascertain the motive or specific meaning of such a comment, so it was difficult to acknowledge the credibility of the existing statement. The case is currently pending appeal before the Supreme Court as the prosecution disagreed with the judgment of the appellate court.