The Supreme Court judged that even if the prosecution was not accused of a graduate student who committed sexual harassment, it was justified that the school had separately imposed a disciplinary action for the September suspension according to the school regulations. The purpose of this is that the credibility of the victim’s statement should not be disregarded based solely on the judgment of the investigative agency.
The third division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 5th that it has confirmed the court case of the plaintiff’s defeat in the appeal of the lawsuit confirming the invalidity of the suspension filed against Seoul National University.
A, a graduate student at Seoul National University, attempted sexual activity by kissing B, a college student at the same school who was drunk at a motel in June 2018, and touching certain parts of the body. Mr. B reported that Mr. A had committed such an act against his will, and reported the damage to the Seoul National University Human Rights Center. Mr. A was disciplined in’September of suspension’ in March of the following year.
The first trial judged that “Mr. A made physical contact with Mr. B’s implied consent,” and raised the plaintiff’s hand. Mr. B directly informed Mr. A of his location to Mr. A, who broke up at a dinner party, and the fact that he clearly remembers the situation of the damage served as the basis. The judiciary also took into account the circumstances in which Mr. B’s suspicion of sexual harassment against Mr. A was disposed of’no charges’ due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution concluded that “Mr. B was not in a state of mental or physical disability or irresistible after waking up from alcohol.”
However, the second trial overturned the first trial, saying, “The school’s discipline is justified.” The judiciary explained that “the truth of the other party’s (victim’s) statement should not be rejected easily, just for the reason that there was an unsuspecting disposition at the investigative agency.” In addition, he admitted that Mr. B was drunk at the time of the damage based on the image of Mr. B on the closed circuit (CC) TV in the motel and the testimony of the student who attended the dinner party.
The Supreme Court also believed that the court judgment was correct. Unlike criminal cases in which sexual violence must be proved to the extent that reasonable suspicion cannot be ruled out, the existing Supreme Court precedent that “It is enough to prove that there was a certain fact in civil or administrative lawsuits.” It became the basis.
Hyunjoo Lee reporter [email protected]
News directly edited by the Hankook Ilbo can also be viewed on Naver.
