Law: "Human Rights Commission's Decision Recognizing 'Park Won-soon Sexual Harassment' Appropriate"

On the morning of March 17 last year, a seat was prepared for the victim of the late Park Won-soon sexual violence case at a press conference titled "Speaking Together with the Victims of the Seoul Mayor's Sexual Violence Case," held at a hotel in Myeong-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul.
Photo by Joint Press Corps

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The court ruled that the decision by the National Human Rights Commission, which found that the late former Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon sexually harassed a subordinate, was appropriate.

On the afternoon of the 15th, the Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 8 (Presiding Judge Lee Jeonghee) ruled against the plaintiff in the first trial of the cancellation lawsuit filed by Park's spouse, Kang Nan-hee, against the Human Rights Commission's recommendation decision.

Earlier, former Mayor Park was found dead near Sukjeongmun at Bukaksan Mountain in July 2020, and it was revealed that he had been accused of forcible molestation by a subordinate, a Seoul city official.

The victim's side stated that Park sent inappropriate messages, photos, and emoticons to the victim late at night and touched the victim's nails and hands, which had been manicured in the office. Due to Park's death, the police concluded the investigation into the sexual harassment allegations in December of that year without resolving the suspicions.

However, in January of the following year, the Human Rights Commission conducted an ex officio investigation and judged that Park's conduct toward the victim constituted sexual harassment. Furthermore, the Commission recommended that Seoul City protect the victim, prevent secondary damage, improve the secretariat's operational practices based on gender role stereotypes, and prepare gender equality job guidelines.

Ms. Kang filed an administrative lawsuit challenging the Human Rights Commission's decision. During the trial, she argued that "the Human Rights Commission violated the procedure for initiating the investigation and distorted evidence," and claimed that "the Commission labeled the deceased as a criminal based solely on the one-sided claims of the other party (the accuser)."

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