Constitutional Court: "Grabbing Attacker's Clothes to Prevent Escape Is Justifiable Act"… Prosecutor's Suspension of Indictment Canceled

Constitutional Court, Jaedong, Jongno-gu, Seoul.
Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Constitutional Court has ruled that grabbing the perpetrator's clothes to prevent them from leaving the scene after an assault that occurred during a scuffle caused by sneezing on the subway can be considered a justifiable act, and therefore the prosecutor's decision to suspend prosecution on assault charges was unlawful.

On the 2nd, the Constitutional Court announced that it unanimously accepted the constitutional complaint filed by Ms. A (37, female), who claimed that the prosecutor's decision to suspend prosecution against her violated her right to equality and pursuit of happiness, and ordered the suspension of prosecution to be revoked.

The court stated, "The act of the petitioner (Ms. A) grabbing the clothes between the victim's right armpit and chest to prevent the victim from leaving the scene can reasonably be considered a justifiable act."

It added, "Nevertheless, the respondent (prosecutor) made the decision to suspend prosecution without thoroughly examining whether the victim used physical force against the petitioner's upper body or investigating witnesses identified in the CCTV footage, which constitutes a legal error regarding justifiable acts, significant investigative negligence affecting the decision, and arbitrary evidence evaluation. As a result, the petitioner's rights to equality and pursuit of happiness were infringed."

On November 16, 2019, while riding the subway, victim Mr. B (57) felt uncomfortable when Ms. A sneezed beside him. After getting off the subway together, Mr. B approached Ms. A and coughed near her face. Ms. A did not respond and tried to leave the subway platform by taking a wide detour, but Mr. B returned and coughed loudly right in front of her, leading to a scuffle.

During the incident, while Ms. A was calling 112 to report the assault, Mr. B attempted to leave the scene. Ms. A grabbed the victim's clothes between his right armpit and chest with her right hand to prevent him from leaving.

During the investigation, Ms. A claimed that Mr. B poked her chest three times with his finger, which led her to call 112, but Mr. B denied this. Although their testimonies conflicted, the Constitutional Court found Ms. A's testimony more credible.

The court stated, "The petitioner claims that during the scuffle, the victim poked her right chest area three times with his finger, prompting her to call 112, while the victim denies this, resulting in conflicting testimonies. However, much of the victim's testimony does not align with the CCTV footage and lacks consistency, reducing its credibility."

It continued, "On the other hand, the petitioner's testimony is detailed, consistent, and mostly matches the CCTV footage, making it highly credible. Although the petitioner's right upper body is obscured by the victim's back in the footage, the victim can be seen pointing or swinging his right hand toward the petitioner's right upper body. Considering this, there is considerable reason to believe that the victim used physical force by poking the petitioner's right upper body with his right hand."

The court also noted, "The petitioner only held the victim's clothes between his right armpit and chest to prevent him from fleeing until the police arrived. In fact, it was the victim who grabbed the petitioner's collar and pushed and pulled her. The petitioner and the victim were strangers, and if the victim had left the scene, it would have been difficult to secure the victim's whereabouts afterward."

A decision to suspend prosecution means that although criminal charges are acknowledged, the prosecutor chooses not to prosecute considering various circumstances. Unlike decisions of non-prosecution due to 'no crime' or 'lack of evidence,' suspension of prosecution acknowledges the criminal charge. Therefore, a person who receives a suspension of prosecution can file a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court seeking cancellation of the suspension on the grounds of fundamental rights violations.

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