“We agreed and went to the motel”… If you don’t remember it as’drunkenness’

Even if they agreed to have a sexual relationship, the Supreme Court’s first precedent came out that if the other party was in a’blackout’ state where he could not remember the situation due to alcohol, etc., the crime of forced harassment was admitted.

The third section of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 21st that the court case, who was acquitted in the appeal of Mr. A, who was accused of semi-forced harassment, was guilty and returned the case to the Suwon District Law.

A police official, 28 years old, has been tried on charges of forcibly harassing Miss B, a teenage boy she met by chance while drinking and going home in February 2017.

Mr. A said that Ms. B’s meeting on this day led to a drinking party. However, Ms. B leaned on the table at the bar he went with and began to sleep.

Mr. A asked Ms. B, “I only need a sigh,” and asked, “Is this a motel?”, and Mr. A’s claim that Yang replied “Go to the motel and go to the motel” and went to the motel together.

At the time, Ms. B had drank two new soju bottles for an hour just before meeting A. After visiting a karaoke room with a friend, Mr. A put on his friend’s shoes and headed to the bathroom with a coat and cell phone in the karaoke room.

Ms. B insisted that after vomiting in the bathroom, she had a sudden drunkenness and that she could not remember anything after that. Ms. B, who came out of the bathroom and met Mr. A, did not return to the karaoke room again, and Ms. B’s friend reported the disappearance to the police.

The first trial admitted Mr. A’s charges and sentenced him to 10 months in prison. In light of the fact that Ms. B did not even wear a coat in the cold winter and did not plan to visit the party who went to the karaoke room, it was judged that she had lost her normal judgment ability.

However, the situation reverses at the second referee. Mr. A was convicted of being acquitted. At the time, the reason was that it was not sufficiently proven that Miss B was in a state of’mind and body loss’, which is a requirement for the establishment of semi-forced harassment.

On the motel CCTV, Ms. B voluntarily moved without staggering or being supported, and the motel employee’s statement that “they entered the motel comfortably” all became the basis for the innocence.

However, in the Supreme Court, Mr. A was again turned guilty. The judge said that Ms. B was in a state of mental and physical loss in light of the fact that Ms. B could not find the party or belongings at the time, and that she had fallen asleep unprotected at the motel she met for the first time.

The judge ruled that “the victim is not in a state of loss of consciousness, but if the victim’s ability to resist harassment is inferior due to alcohol, a semi-rape or semi-forced harassment can be applied”

However, he emphasized that the possibility of alcohol blackout should not be easily admitted simply by stating that “the film has ended,” he said.

[조성신 매경닷컴 기자 [email protected]]
[ⓒ 매일경제 & mk.co.kr, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]