Court: "If the victim is not identified and the opportunity for newspaper coverage is denied, it constitutes a violation of the right to defense"

Seoul High Court / Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The court ruled that in lawsuits where the parties' claims conflict and the victim is not identified, depriving the opportunity for witness examination constitutes a violation of the right to defense and is therefore unlawful.

According to the legal community on the 14th, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 9 (Presiding Judge Kim Si-cheol) ruled in favor of prosecutor A in a dismissal cancellation lawsuit filed against the Prosecutor General yesterday. The court stated, "The defendant deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to request witness examination of the victim who gave testimony unfavorable to the plaintiff," and "the defendant's actions violate the plaintiff's right to defense and are unlawful."

The court explained, "Under the Constitution, parties to a lawsuit have the right to a trial where the right to attack and defend, including responding to claims and presenting and rebutting evidence, is fully guaranteed," and "if the plaintiff is not given the opportunity to impeach the victim's testimony, it violates the principle of equality of arms derived from the party disposition principle." The court further added, "From the court's perspective, it is necessary to determine the truth of the parties' claims and resolve doubts through witness examination of the victim regarding the misconduct," and "because the defendant did not specify the victim at all, the trial itself is impossible."

Regarding the defendant's argument emphasizing the protection of sexual harassment victims and the obligation to prevent secondary damage, the court pointed out, "Even in cases involving minor victims, the Constitutional Court has ruled that depriving the defendant's right to cross-examination is not constitutionally permissible," and "the victims involved in this case are all adult public officials working at the same prosecutor's office as the plaintiff." It added, "In criminal trials for sexual violence crimes, witness examination of the victim is premised on ensuring the defendant's right to defense," and "victim personal information is not absolutely confidential but is disclosed within the necessary scope for witness examination or appropriately used through identity management cards managed by the prosecution."

A was dismissed in May 2019 while working at a local prosecutor's office for 33 disciplinary reasons, including ▲sexual harassment ▲unfair acts abusing superior position and authority ▲private use of public property. A filed an appeal with the Review Committee but was dismissed, leading to this lawsuit. The previous first trial dismissed the plaintiff's claim, judging that the disciplinary reasons were recognized and the disciplinary measures appropriate.

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