Employee Absent Due to Sexual Harassment Trauma Faces 'Dismissal Notice'... CEO and Corporation Fined

Guilty of Violating the Equal Employment Opportunity Act
President Committed Sexual Harassment and Then Announced Dismissal
President and Corporation Each Fined 5 Million Won

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The CEO of a company and the corporation itself were each fined after sending a notice threatening dismissal if an employee, who was sexually harassed by the CEO and subsequently absent without leave due to shock, did not return to work within a week.

According to the court on the 4th, Judge Park Seol-ah of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 24 recently sentenced A (44, male), CEO of a software development company, and the corporation to fines of 5 million won each for violating the Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation.

Judge Park stated, "The defendants' guilt is not light, and the victim's psychological trauma appears to be considerable," adding, "Various sentencing factors such as age, character, environment, the circumstances of the crime, and post-crime conditions were taken into account."

Earlier, A was prosecuted last year in June for unfairly treating employee B (20, female), whom he forcibly molested. In May of the same year, under the pretext of "listening to workplace grievances," A drank with B and then forcibly touched her body in a taxi and elsewhere. Due to the shock, B was unable to attend work for about two weeks, and A sent her a dismissal notice stating that if she did not return to work within a week, she would be automatically dismissed 30 days from the date of notification.

In court, A's side argued, "The corporation should be subject to a fine, not criminal punishment under the Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation," and "We did not impose any unfavorable treatment against the will of the reported victim employee."

The first trial found A guilty. Judge Park ruled, "The defendant's act of forcible molestation constitutes 'sexual harassment in the workplace' as defined by the Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation," and "Using his position as CEO, he arranged a drinking session with the victim employee and molested her breasts against her will while she was intoxicated."

In particular, Judge Park stated, "A's act of sending a dismissal notice to the victim constitutes unfavorable treatment against the victim's will." This judgment was based on the fact that A clearly knew the reason for B's unauthorized absence and personally saw messages explaining his forcible molestation, thus he should have taken appropriate measures including ordering paid leave.

Judge Park criticized, "He notified dismissal because she did not come to work without response and indicated that damages could be claimed for unauthorized absence," adding, "This is unfavorable treatment against the will of a sexual harassment victim." Furthermore, he explained, "According to Article 38 of the Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation, which includes joint punishment provisions, the company can also be criminally fined."

A has appealed this ruling.

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