The incident began when two teenage male students (hereinafter referred to as A and B) reported that they had been sexually assaulted by a female instructor at the academy.
They claimed that the female instructor forcibly kissed them or made inappropriate physical contact at the academy or in the car.
also,
He also stated that he was sexually assaulted at an academy where no one was present.
In the first trial, through specific and consistent statements,
10 years in prison
Completed 80 hours of sexual violence treatment program
Ruling to restrict employment at child and youth-related institutions and register personal information for 10 years
But a twist occurred in the second trial.
Evidence has emerged that directly contradicts the male students’ claims.
On the day of the incident, male student A
I skipped school without any particular reason because I didn’t want to go to school.
The female instructor who found out about this
She claimed that he called her to the academy and sexually assaulted her.
however,
According to the actual school attendance record, the reason for absence was ‘leg fracture’;
Upon confirmation, it was revealed that he and his mother had gone to the hospital for treatment due to a ligament tear.
This caused significant cracks in the statements that had been consistent and specific up to now.
The court delved into this point,
Student A remained silent, saying ‘I don’t remember’ and ‘I don’t know’
While the circumstances of sexual assault are stated very specifically,
I couldn’t remember the part related to the reason for absence.
The court began to doubt the credibility of the statement.
Meanwhile, Student B’s statement that he was molested in a car also had loopholes revealed by other friends.
Student B claimed that the female instructor molested him after making other children who were riding with him in the academy vehicle get out.
As a result of investigating other students who were in the vehicle together,
It was revealed that the words telling the children to get off were mainly done by the male student, B, not the female instructor.
(In fact, the female instructor was hospitalized for liposuction surgery at the time of the incident, but was found guilty in the first trial on the logic that sexual assault could have been possible by going to the academy even while hospitalized.)
Not guilty in the second trial
The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the acquittal was confirmed.
summary)
1. Two teenage male students reported sexual harassment and sexual assault by a female instructor at the academy.
2. A female instructor was sentenced to 10 years in prison in the first trial due to consistent and specific statements.
3. In the second trial, evidence was miraculously revealed that overturned the existing statement, and the female instructor was ultimately found not guilty.