Supreme Court Acquits Defendant in Attempted Quasi-rape Case, “Offender-Centered Reasoning”

“Condemnation” of the Supreme Court Ruling: On April 27, the Supreme Court acquitted a man who had attempted to rape a drunk and unconscious woman after taking her to a motel. Members of an alliance for a just ruling in quasi-rape cases hold a press conference condemning the court’s decision in front of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul Thursday. Yonhap News

The Supreme Court acquitted a man charged for attempting to rape a drunk woman after taking her to a motel. The latest decision drew fire for failing to go beyond an “offender-centered” way of thinking. It also had experts argue that sexual violence cases should not be tried in a citizen participatory trial, where common citizens take part as members of the jury.

On April 27, the petty bench two of the Supreme Court (head justice Cho Jae-youn) finalized the initial ruling acquitting A, charged for attempted quasi-rape.

A first met his victim, B, at a club in the Hongdae district in Seoul in May 2017. After a few drinks together, A took the drunk B to a motel in Gyeonggi-do and allegedly tried to rape her. At first, the prosecutors dropped the charges against A claiming his crime was difficult to prove, but after a request for judgment and an appeal by the victim, they had A stand in trial for attempted quasi-rape.

In the first trial, which was held as a citizen participatory trial, five of the seven members of the jury found A not guilty. They claimed, “The evidence submitted by the prosecutors was not enough to prove that A attempted quasi-rape.”

The judges in the second trial and in the Supreme Court finalized the initial ruling claiming that “There was a misunderstanding about the legal principles on the intention for quasi-rape and the fault of lacking judgment.”

The key issue in the latest case was whether or not A had the intention to rape B by taking advantage of the fact that she was unable to resist.

In the first trial, the court judged that A was aware that B was dead drunk, since he, along with his party, helped her into the motel.

The bench also acknowledged that A undressed B completely in the motel room. But they recognized that A eventually did not rape B after thinking, “If I had sex, it would be like having sex with a corpse,” when B did not stir. The court believed that A did not have the intention to commit quasi-rape.

The latest decision triggered criticism that the court failed to break away from a perpetrator-focused way of reasoning.

Lee Eun-eui, a lawyer specializing in sex crimes, asked, “When a person is in a state where she cannot independently make a decision, then even if there was prior consent, we cannot confirm that her consent will be maintained, can we?” and argued, “The latest case showed that the court did not properly consider the idea that one should not do such a thing to her.”

Again, people argued that sexual violence cases should not be tried in a citizen participatory trial.

According to the Office of Court Administration, sex crimes were more likely to be acquitted (21.88%) by citizen juries in 2008-2020 than other crimes. The acquittal rate was three-times that of robbery and injury.

Attorney Lee said, “Defendants of sex crimes tend to appeal to the sympathy of the jurors by complaining of their situation and blaming the victim in a citizen participatory trial, and the problem is that this actually works.” She said, “Sexual violence cases are not suitable for trials with a citizen jury.” She further argued, “Judges tend to mechanically accept the result of the first trial with citizen participation as long as there are no special circumstances, and I think this case revealed such problems.”