beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant, within the workplace, is a person who may substantially affect the victim's business, employment relationship, etc., and the victim's statement is consistent, and thus, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and acquitted the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant exercised occupational authority against the victim, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, in full view of the following: (a) there is no evidence to the effect that the Defendant was not in the organizational protection and supervision relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and that there was no substantial influence or possibility on the victim’s business or employment relationship; and (b) the Defendant began to put the victim a face of her trouble from January 3, 2018 to the point that the Defendant made a clear intention of refusal on February 16, 2017.
B. The crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act on the Abuse of Occupational Authority, etc.) is established when an indecent act is committed against a person under his/her protection and supervision through a deceptive scheme or by force against a person under his/her duty, employment and other relationship. The term “person under his/her protection or supervision due to business or other relationship” includes not only the person under his/her relationship with the organizational protection or supervision by the rules, etc. of the workplace but also the person under his/her duty or employment relationship, etc. within the workplace (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6800, Sept. 24, 2009). In such a case, the term “comfortness” includes not only the person under his/her relationship with the organizational protection or supervision by the rules, etc. of the workplace, but also the person under his/her social and political status or authority.