Supreme Court: "Aggravated Punishment for Sexual Crimes Against Disabled Persons Cannot Be Excluded Due to Being Considered Minor"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that sexual crimes committed against disabled individuals who appear to have no physical disabilities also fall under the category of aggravated punishment for rape of disabled persons under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes.

On the 25th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yusook) overturned the lower court's ruling that acquitted Mr. A of rape of a disabled person but found him guilty of rape under the Criminal Act, and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (Sexual Violence Punishment Act - Rape of Disabled Persons) and other charges.

Mr. A had been on trial for forcibly molesting and raping Ms. B, a woman with level 3 physical and visual disabilities living next door, from October 2013 to January 2014. The prosecution applied the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, which stipulates aggravated punishment when the victim is a "person with a disability," considering that Ms. B had difficulty walking and was practically blind in one eye, classified as level 3 physical and visual disabilities, and indicted Mr. A accordingly. Article 6 of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act states that "anyone who commits sexual intercourse or molestation by taking advantage of a person being in a state of inability to resist due to physical or mental disability shall be punished," imposing heavier penalties than general sexual violence crimes.

The first trial mostly recognized Mr. A's charges of forcible molestation and rape. However, it ruled that it was difficult to consider Ms. B as a "disabled person" under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act and applied charges of rape and forcible molestation under the Criminal Act against a non-disabled person, sentencing him to three years in prison with a five-year probation. The second trial also dismissed the prosecution's appeal, stating, "Considering Ms. B's appearance, physical characteristics and abilities, usual lifestyle, and court testimony, it is difficult to recognize that she has physical or mental disabilities to the extent that requires special protection of her sexual self-determination rights."

However, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. A should be severely punished by applying charges such as rape of a disabled person under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act. The court emphasized, "The condition of victims with disabilities varies individually in appearance and degree," and "When judging physical disabilities, the victim's condition must be sufficiently considered, and it should not be easily concluded that there is no disability from the perspective and standards of non-disabled persons."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.