Prosecutor Who Did Not Submit 'Favorable Evidence' for Defendant... Supreme Court Rules "State Must Compensate"

Prosecutors Indicted for Quasi-Rape... Omission of National Forensic Service Report with No DNA Detected
Court: "Negligent Violation of Evidence Submission Duty... Evidence Must Be Submitted Timely"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors have an obligation to submit evidence when they secure evidence favorable to the defendant.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) announced on the 19th that it upheld the lower court's ruling ordering the state to pay 3 million won to Mr. A, who was acquitted.

In October 2015, Mr. A was prosecuted on charges of quasi-rape for unlawfully entering a friend's one-room apartment while the friend was asleep after taking sleeping pills and sexually assaulting them. At the time, Mr. A claimed during the investigation that he was intoxicated and had no memory of the incident, but the prosecution concluded that the charges were valid based on the fact that Mr. A was found awake in the victim's room wearing only underwear and the victim's testimony.

The issue was that the prosecution did not submit the forensic report from the National Forensic Service, which was decisive evidence showing that Mr. A's DNA was not detected on the victim's body, as evidence in court.

The prosecution only submitted the DNA forensic report as evidence after Mr. A requested the court to send documents from the National Forensic Service during the first trial, and the court received a copy of the DNA report.

Ultimately, Mr. A was acquitted in the first, second, and third trials based on the decisive evidence proving he did not commit sexual assault. Subsequently, Mr. A filed a lawsuit against the state claiming mental damages, arguing that the prosecutor coerced him into confessing during the execution of their duties and failed to submit the National Forensic Service's DNA report as evidence, causing him harm.

The first and second trials rejected Mr. A's claims that the prosecutor coerced him into confessing or that his statements were made under coercion. However, they ruled that the prosecutor's omission of the DNA forensic report, which was decisive evidence favorable to Mr. A, from the list of evidence at the time of indictment and its later submission constituted negligence in fulfilling the duty to submit evidence during the execution of official duties. Therefore, the state was ordered to pay Mr. A 3 million won.

The Supreme Court also agreed with the lower courts' judgments. The court stated, "There is no error in the legal principles regarding negligence, illegality, occurrence of damage, and causation in the state's liability for damages due to the prosecutor's official acts, nor any mistake affecting the judgment, in upholding the first trial ruling that recognized state compensation liability for the prosecutor's delayed submission of the DNA forensic report, which was decisively favorable evidence for the defendant's exercise of defense rights."

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