Victim's testimony alone enough to convict, Busan court rules in sex crime case

A Busan court has sentenced a man in his 30s to prison for committing a sex crime against his wife's friend, ruling that the victim's consistent testimony alone was sufficient to establish guilt without physical evidence.

The Busan District Court's Criminal Division 5, presided over by Judge Kim Hyeon-sun, sentenced the defendant, identified only as A, to two years and six months in prison on charges of quasi-similar rape. The court also ordered him to complete a 40-hour sexual violence treatment program and barred him from working at institutions serving children, youth and people with disabilities for three years.

The court did not remand A into custody at sentencing, citing the need to give him an opportunity to make amends and apologize to the victim.

A was indicted on charges of touching the body of B, a woman in her 30s and a friend of his wife, while she slept intoxicated at his home in Nam-gu, Busan, in the early hours of March 27 last year.

Investigators found that A's wife and B had been close friends for about a decade. On the night before the incident, the two women had been drinking together near Gwangalli Beach, after which A's wife invited B back to their home to continue the gathering.

Prosecutors determined that A committed the act against B while she was passed out on the living room sofa.

The case was tried before a citizen jury at A's request. The central question was whether the charges could be proven solely on B's testimony, with no physical evidence, no witnesses and no video footage of the alleged act.

Prosecutors argued the charges were fully proven, pointing to B's consistent and detailed account from the earliest stages of the investigation through her courtroom testimony, the natural circumstances under which she came forward, and the absence of any motive to fabricate the allegations.

They also said it was difficult to accept that A had initially admitted to the act and apologized to B immediately after the incident, only to later reverse his position.

A's defense denied that any crime had taken place, saying he had apologized out of a sense of moral responsibility to defuse the situation after seeing his wife distraught. A claimed that during the time the alleged act was said to have occurred, he had been getting ready for work, tidying the dining table and talking with B.

Of the seven citizen jurors, four voted to convict and three to acquit. Sentencing recommendations were also divided: two jurors suggested three years in prison, two suggested two years and six months, one suggested two years, and two suggested two years with a two-year suspended sentence.

The court handed down a sentence of two years and six months — heavier than the two-year term prosecutors had sought.

In its ruling, the court said it found A guilty because "the key details of the victim's testimony are consistent and specific, and it is difficult to find any internal contradictions." The court added that it had "respected the jury's verdict in keeping with the spirit of the citizen jury trial system."