hankyoreh

A group of organizers hold a press conference outside the Supreme Court of Korea on Jan. 13, 2020, where they condemn the court’s acquittal of Ahn Tae-geun, a former senior prosecutor. (Yonhap)

Success or failure in court has never been the measure of truth, and that has also been the case with Seo, the first prominent figure in Korea’s #MeToo movement.

The courts sided with former senior prosecutor Ahn Tae-geun and the Korean state both in Ahn’s criminal trial and in the damages lawsuit that Seo brought against him and the state. Nevertheless, the courts acknowledged the truth of all the allegations that Seo had brought, including that Ahn had sexually harassed her and disadvantaged Seo by transferring her to small-time posts. 

Court acknowledges sexual harassment and unfavorable reassignments

“It can be acknowledged that defendant Ahn Tae-geun sexually harassed Seo Ji-hyun by leaning against her and wrapping his right hand around her from behind while she was sitting to his right, along with several other prosecutors, at a funeral hall on Oct. 30, 2010.”

Thus read the district court’s verdict on criminal charges that Ahn had overstepped his authority. Ahn was only indicted for overstepping his authority, and not sexual harassment, because the statute of limitations had expired for the latter.

That didn’t mean that Seo hadn’t been sexually harassed, as the court explicitly acknowledged in its review of the charge that Ahn had overstepped his authority in making personnel reassignments.

Not only was Seo’s testimony concrete and coherent, but colleagues who had either heard about the incident or witnessed it firsthand had offered adequate testimony as well.

The court noted that the internal affairs office at the Justice Ministry had looked into the sexual harassment allegations at the time, that it had concluded its investigation because Seo didn’t want to make a stir, and that the head of internal affairs had warned Ahn not to misbehave while drunk.

The court also found that Ahn had been behind Seo’s inappropriate reassignment. Standard practice at the prosecution service is to give a lighter assignment to a seasoned prosecutor who has held a hardship position at a small office without a senior prosecutor assigned to it, and the court couldn’t find any valid reason why that practice had been suspended in the case of Seo.

When the first draft of the reassignment plan was submitted to Ahn, he amended the plan to Seo’s disadvantage, making Seo the first veteran prosecutor in 15 years to be given two hardship positions in a row. In light of those facts, the court described Seo’s assignment as “irregular,” “unnatural” and “disturbing.” The court also rejected Ahn’s argument that Seo had been sent to another hardship post because of her “poor reputation.”

“There are no official documents describing Seo’s reputation. On the contrary, Seo received high marks in her work. She received a citation from the Justice Minister for her service at the Yeoju branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, and her work was praised on four occasions by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.

Supreme Court erases the power dynamic between aggressor and victim

In the initial trial and on appeal, the courts accepted Seo’s arguments and sentenced Ahn to two years in prison. But the second petty bench of the Supreme Court tossed the case back to the lower courts, instructing them to acquit Ahn on the grounds that senior prosecutors “are allowed considerable discretion in personnel assignments.”

According to the Supreme Court, the standard practice of showing consideration to veteran prosecutors who have served in a hardship post is not an “absolute principle.” The Supreme Court had nothing to say about the background of the case — namely, that Ahn had been guilty of sexual harassment and that his victim was Seo, the very person to whom he gave an unfavorable assignment.

The lower courts applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning when they revisited the case.

Park Su-jin, an attorney who previously served as head of the women’s rights committee at Minbyun-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, criticized the court for issuing “an irresponsible and cowardly ruling that failed to even consider whether [Ahn] had abused his discretion or deviated from his responsibilities.”

“The ruling didn’t account for the power dynamics between the aggressor Ahn, who was in charge of personnel assignments, and the victim Seo, who was subject to those assignments. It also failed to account for the fact that the prosecution service [where those power dynamics were at work] is the organization with the strongest power dynamics in Korea,” Park elaborated.

No leeway on three-year limit although #MeToo allegations had been long suppressed

Seo’s damages lawsuit, which ended in defeat, had also been hobbled by the three-year statute of limitations. The original incident of sexual harassment occurred back in 2010.

“We readily grant, in light of experience, that Seo must have suffered substantial psychological pain because of Ahn’s sexual harassment,” the court said, while still ruling against the plaintiff on the grounds that the three-year limit for claiming damages under Korea’s civil law had passed.

According to Supreme Court precedent from 2021 (after the #MeToo movement began), the period of time when damages can be claimed for late diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from a sexual offense should begin with the day when the diagnosis was made.

In the case of Seo, her PTSD was triggered after Ahn began to be frequently mentioned in the media after an incident in May 2017 when he handed out envelopes full of cash to several prosecutors over a meal. When her civil lawsuit went to appeal, she submitted her diagnosis and related records and a psychologist’s opinion that she had a sleep disorder resulting from PTSD and a panic disorder that caused breathing difficulties.

But the court didn’t accept this diagnosis, describing it as no more than “clinical speculation.” The court apparently reached that conclusion because Seo had no record of continuing treatment.

In the end, Seo’s inability to receive proper psychiatric treatment for fear it would lead to further punitive treatment at work resulted in an unfavorable judgment in the court. As a result, the legal precedent achieved through the efforts of the #MeToo movement was not actually applied in Seo’s own case.

Victims of sexual violence often deal with psychological pressure that makes it hard to speak up, a structural issue that many say should be actively reflected in decisions about the statute of limitations in civil law. 

“Even if victims of sex crimes were to initiate legal proceedings, criminal or civil, immediately after being victimized without any hesitation or worries, three years is an extremely short statute of limitations,” said Park, the lawyer. “Statutes of limitation for civil suits also need to be reworked in light of the structural issues that surround victims of sex crimes.”

By Lee Ji-hye, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]