Air Force Sexual Assault Victim Never Met Her Lawyer

[경향신문]

On the morning of June 6, President Moon Jae-in visits the funeral parlor for Air Force Sergeant Yi at the Armed Forces Capital Hospital in Seongnam, Gyeonggi and gazes at the portrait of the late officer. The president promised the victim’s family a thorough investigation. Courtesy of Cheongwadae

The Air Force non-commissioned officer (NCO) who fell victim to sexual assault never met her state-appointed lawyer according to the latest investigation. Investigators also confirmed that the military prosecutors assigned to the case did not question the perpetrator and the victim for nearly two months until the victim was found dead.

On June 6, a military representative announced, “On March 9, six days after the incident was reported, the state assigned a public military attorney (Air Force lieutenant) for the victim, and on May 14, that attorney was replaced with another state-appointed military lawyer (Air Force lieutenant).”

The first lawyer was replaced because he had traveled overseas for his honeymoon and had to be in quarantine for two weeks, the military representative explained. The victim spoke with her first lawyer seven times via telephone calls and text messages to discuss issues including the appointment of a new lawyer. She only spoke with her new lawyer twice. The victim not once met with her lawyers in person. The victim’s family, who hired a civilian lawyer after the death of the victim, claimed that the state-appointed lawyers had nothing prepared. The family plans to file a report against the state-appointed lawyer A for dereliction of duty.

The Ministry of National Defense said, “When investigating an incident in the military, the military police hands a notice and explains the details concerning the state-appointed lawyer to the client, and when they confirm the client’s request for a lawyer, they inform the military prosecutors so that an attorney can be appointed.” However, experts inside and outside the military believe that it was inappropriate for the military prosecutors to assign a sensitive case like sexual assault to a rookie military advocate.

The Air Force routinely assigns sexual crime cases to rookie advocates in the Military Human Rights Center and Gender Equality Center in the Air Force Headquarters.

Military prosecutors received the case from the military police with recommendations to prosecute the offender on April 7 but failed to question the assailant and the victim until May 22, when the victim was found dead. The questioning of the perpetrator Sergeant Jang was scheduled for June 4, but when the victim was found dead on May 22, prosecutors rescheduled the questioning to May 31. The military prosecutors reported to the Air Force that they delayed the questioning of the victim because she was mentally unstable, but in the meantime, they failed to even confiscate and search the cell phone of her assailant. According to People Power Party lawmaker Lee Che-ik, the military prosecutors were issued a warrant for a search and seizure for Sergeant Jang’s cell phone on May 27, but they had Jang voluntarily hand in his cell phone on May 31. In the 20th Fighter Wing, where the victim was deployed, there were three officers from the military prosecutors’ office: a staff judge advocate, a public prosecutor, and a noncommissioned officer. This structure is likely to lead to poor investigations, for it makes it difficult to conduct a professional investigation.

The defense ministry submitted an amendment of the Military Court Act to the National Assembly last year. The amendment abolished the High Military Court and had appellate military trials transferred to the Seoul High Court. It also transferred the general prosecutors’ offices of units under the command of general-grade officers to the prosecutors’ offices under the minister of national defense and the chiefs of staff of each military branch. But “A Survey of the Military Investigation and Justice System and Ways to Enhance the System” released by the National Human Rights Commission in 2015 warned that keeping the military prosecutors’ office as an independent unit directly under the Ministry of National Defense could lead to an abuse of authority and introduced a German model, where prosecutors and legal advisers in the defense ministry cooperate to investigate criminal cases in the military and where cases are prosecuted by a general prosecutor.

Experts argue that the state should ban the establishment of a special military court at times of peace, as in the German military, and introduce measures to allow special military courts at times of war or when troops are stationed overseas. The French military also has 37 special divisions in civilian courts to oversee cases of military criminal law violations by soldiers. The South Korean military adopted the model of the U.S. military, which is an overseas expeditionary force, and established military prosecutors’ offices and military courts, but experts point out that such a system is inefficient in South Korea, where military units have good access to civilian prosecutors’ offices and courts.