70s Man Sentenced for Sexually Assaulting Disabled Daughter-in-Law After Taking Erectile Dysfunction Medication

Reference photo. / Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Kang Juhee] A man in his 70s, who was charged with sexually assaulting and molesting his intellectually disabled daughter-in-law, has been sentenced to prison.

The Criminal Division 12 of the Gwangju District Court (Presiding Judge No Jaeho) announced on the 27th that it sentenced Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (quasi-rape by a family member, molestation of a disabled person by deception, etc.), to five years in prison.

The court also ordered Mr. A to complete 40 hours of a sexual violence treatment program and imposed a five-year employment ban at child and youth-related institutions and welfare facilities for the disabled.

The court stated, "Mr. A treated his intellectually disabled daughter-in-law as an object for sexual gratification. After the daughter-in-law was molested and unable to inform her family of the incident or take any action, Mr. A even obtained prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication and committed rape through intimidation. This is a crime against humanity with a very serious nature."

It added, "We have taken into account that the victim's modest dreams and hopes were crushed less than three months after moving in with the family, that the victim has not been able to overcome her mental suffering, that the victim and her family demand severe punishment, and that Mr. A has no prior criminal record."

Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of sexually assaulting and molesting his intellectually disabled daughter-in-law by intimidation in the living room of his home in February 2019.

It was investigated that Mr. A exploited the fact that his daughter-in-law could not easily disobey him and that he had taken erectile dysfunction medication.

Mr. A reportedly strongly denied the charges, saying in front of his family, "I only loved my daughter-in-law."

However, the court did not accept Mr. A’s statements, citing the specificity and consistency of the victim’s testimony as grounds.

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