The boss’s headlock to a female employee in her twenties… 1st and 2nd trial of auxingakshin, Supreme Law “sexual harassment”

The Supreme Court once again expanded the scope of the harassment. On the 24th, the first division of the Supreme Court (Chief Judge Lee Heung-gu), in the case where Mr. A, the CEO in his 50s, placed a so-called “headlock” on a female employee in his 20s, and continued physical contact and inappropriate words and actions, convicted of forcible harassment and remanded the case.

B, who is about to change his job, attends a company dinner. At the place where Mr. A was also the CEO, talks about Mr. B’s marriage, etc. went back and forth. Suddenly, Mr. A wrapped his arm around Mr. B’s head and pulled it toward his chest. It was a so-called’head lock’. Mr. B’s head touched Mr. A’s chest, and Mr. A struck Mr. B’s head twice with his fist.

It didn’t happen only once at a dinner party that day. While continuing the conversation, Mr. A said to Mr. B, “How can I keep holding on this X?” I have to grab the head and hold it,” he said and grabbed the victim’s hair with both hands and shook it. Mr. A’s finger touched the victim’s scalp. He also said, “You are not getting married to marry me.” Afterwards, he continued to smack B’s shoulder while swearing like “this X” and “that X”. Colleagues at the dinner party at the time said, “If you’re like this, you’re me too”, “Why are you doing this, boss?” Eventually, Mr. B cried at the dinner table.

Judge Kim Yong-chan, a criminal 16-only judge of the Seoul Central District Court, who was in charge of the first trial last year, ruled that Mr. A’s actions should be viewed as forced harassment. Mr. A insisted, “It is correct to wear a headlock, but he did not pull his head toward his chest, and his head did not touch.” He also said that he didn’t grab his hair, he just grabbed the head and shook it. It was argued that these actions were somewhat radical expressions of affection and regret when the victim, who was an employee as the company’s representative, tried to leave. It is to the effect that there was no intention of harassment.

Judge Kim ruled, “Even if the part where Mr. A contacted Mr. B is not sexually sensitive, there is no essential difference between the parts of the body in molestation.” “Considering the process and method of contact, and the relationship between the two, it is difficult to see that Mr. A’s actions are simply expressing affection and regret for the employees from the perspective of the general public.” The objective is that Mr. A’s behavior is an assault, even if it is viewed objectively, and even if there is no subjective purpose to stimulate Mr. A’s sexual desire, it is the same. In particular, the first referee looked at not only one’head lock’, but also the fact that the people around him kept holding him off, and when Mr. A approached Mr. B by moving to the second place, the people around him tried to separate them. The first trial sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 5 million won.

On the other hand, Section 2 of the Seoul Central District Criminal Court (Judge Lee Gwan-yong), who was in charge of the second trial, convicted Mr. A. The second referee said, “It is fully admitted that Mr. B felt shame and insult for Mr. A’s actions.” However, he ruled that “this act objectively causes sexual shame or disgust in the general public and cannot be seen as a forced harassment that violates the sexual freedom of the victim.”

The second referee was ▶The point that the place of the incident was an open and public place ▶It is difficult to see that the shoulder or head is a specific body part related to sex by itself ▶Although A’s headlock may be assault, it is an act with sexual intention ▶ The words “How can I catch this X?” came from talking about company work such as salary negotiations with Mr. B. ▶Mr. B stated that he felt sexual shame, contempt, and shame displeasure immediately after the incident. However, the reason was that it was difficult to say that the sexual shame was clearly detected and stated. Even if Mr. A’s words and actions infringe upon Mr. B’s moral rights, it is difficult to evaluate them as harassment.

The Supreme Court turned it over again. In this case, the Supreme Court made it clear that Mr. A’s words and actions objectively correspond to harassment that could cause sexual shame in the general public. First, in the relationship between A, a man in his 50s, and Mr. B, a woman in his 20s as an employee, he ruled that Mr. A’s behavior is against good sexual morality. It was also said that the fact that it was a surprise attack and that it occurred when others were present in an open place was not a very important factor to consider.

They also judged the contact body parts. In this case, the victim’s neck and the defendant’s arm touched, and the victim’s head touched the defendant’s chest. The Supreme Court said, “If you look at the contact area or method, objectively, the public can feel sexual shame.” In addition, Mr. A’s words before and after this action also became a problem. “I’m not getting married to marry me”, “I’ll have to grab this X’s head and hold it,” and the female staff around them protested. The Supreme Court evaluated that “A’s words and actions gave the victim an insult by revealing the victim’s femininity and showing off Mr. A’s masculinity.”

It was the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the’sexual intention’ that presented a milestone on whether to view Mr. A’s actions as’assault’ or’assault’. The Supreme Court said, “It is not only acts related to sexual activity (sex relations, skinship) that have sexual intentions. It is also possible to insult victims by exposing the victim’s femininity and showing off the accused’s masculinity. It can be seen as an act of having it.” It also made it clear that the victim’s comments that he felt “gruesome”, “contempt” and “displeasure” in the process corresponded to sexual shame.

Reporter Lee Sujeong [email protected]