Men who were handed over to trial for grabbing the buttocks of women they saw for the first time were also sentenced to probation in prison one after another in an appeals court.
According to legal circles on the 12th of Dec, the Gwangju District Court’s second criminal department (judge Kim Jin-man) dismissed the defendant’s appeal at an appeal trial of A (20), who was sentenced to eight months in prison and 40 hours of sexual violence treatment classes.
A was indicted on May 10 last year at around 1 a.m. on charges of forcibly molesting a woman in her 20s at a bar in Gwangsan-gu, Gwangju.
After touching the woman’s butt once passing through the pub passage, A felt her butt again when the woman went to the bathroom.
A admitted his crime but appealed that the lower court’s sentence was heavy and unfair.
The court ruled, “The crime, in this case, was molested by grabbing the victim’s butt twice, and the nature of the crime was not good and the victim was not agreed upon. The sentence of the lower court is within a reasonable range of discretion, but it is difficult to say that it is too heavy or light.”
On the same day, the second criminal department dismissed the appeal of B (80), who was handed over to trial on the same charges (forced harassment) as A and maintained the lower court.
B was indicted on November 6, 2019, at around 2 p.m., on charges of tapping a female employee in her 20s on the buttocks twice at a business briefing session at a public relations center for a construction company in Buk-gu, Gwangju.
The first trial sentenced B to seven months in prison, two years of probation, and 40 hours of sexual violence treatment classes.
B appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing, saying, “There was no forced harassment.”
However, the court did not accept B’s claim, considering that the victim had no motive or circumstances to acquit the defendant and that the statement was consistent.
The defendant suddenly hit the victim’s buttocks twice, which seems to have caused the victim to feel considerable shame and displeasure, the court said. “In particular, he did not make any efforts to recover from the damage and was not forgiven by the victim.”
