Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Sexual-awareness sensitivity and credibility of the complainant's statement
Supreme Court, Oct. 25, 2018, 2018Do7709 (judgment)
Case name: 강간·특수상해·상해·특수협박·협박·폭행(피해자 진술의 신빙성 판단이 문제된 사건)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a rape charge rests in substance only on the complainant's statement, may a court reject that statement's credibility on circumstances that are merely compatible with it, and what standard governs the finding of force or threat under Article 297 of the Criminal Act?
Holding
A court hearing a sexual assault or sexual harassment case must not lose 'sexual-awareness sensitivity', and may not lightly discard a complainant's statement without fully weighing the special circumstances the complainant faced. Whether force or threat existed is judged from the concrete situation the complainant was in at the time of intercourse, taking every circumstance together, and it must not be hastily concluded from after-the-fact escape or insufficient resistance alone that resistance was not made notably difficult. Where a rape charge rests in substance only on the complainant's statement, the defendant's lack of rationality and self-contradiction is not direct evidence of the charge, but it may, at the judge's free evaluation, support the complainant's statement or combine with it as an indirect circumstance.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
개별적, 구체적인 사건에서 성폭행 등의 피해자가 처하여 있는 특별한 사정을 충분히 고려하지 않은 채 피해자 진술의 증명력을 가볍게 배척하는 것은 정의와 형평의 이념에 입각하여 논리와 경험의 법칙에 따른 증거판단이라고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Lightly rejecting the probative value of the statements of the victim without sufficiently considering the special circumstances in which the victim of, among others, sexual assault is placed in an individual and specific case cannot be regarded as an evaluation of evidence based on logic and the rules of experience, grounded in the ideals of justice and equity.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
그 폭행·협박의 내용과 정도는 물론 유형력을 행사하게 된 경위, 피해자와의 관계, 성교 당시와 그 후의 정황 등 모든 사정을 종합하여 피해자가 성교 당시 처하였던 구체적인 상황을 기준으로 판단하여야 하며
Unofficial English translation
must be determined on the basis of the specific circumstances in which the victim was placed at the time of the sexual intercourse, by comprehensively taking into account all circumstances, including not only the content and extent of such assault or threat, but also the circumstances under which physical force came to be exercised, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of and after the sexual intercourse; and
Factors
- 그 진술 내용의 주요한 부분이 일관되며, 경험칙에 비추어 비합리적이거나 진술 자체로 모순되는 부분이 없고, 또한 허위로 피고인에게 불리한 진술을 할 만한 동기나 이유가 분명하게 드러나지 않는 이상
- 개별적, 구체적인 사건에서 성폭행 등의 피해자가 처하여 있는 특별한 사정을 충분히 고려하지 않은 채
- 사후적으로 보아 피해자가 성교 이전에 범행 현장을 벗어날 수 있었다거나 피해자가 사력을 다하여 반항하지 않았다는 사정만으로
- 유형력을 행사하게 된 경위, 피해자와의 관계, 성교 당시와 그 후의 정황 등 모든 사정을 종합하여
- 피고인의 진술이 경험칙상 합리성이 없고 그 자체로 모순되어 믿을 수 없다고 하여 그것이 공소사실을 인정하는 직접증거가 되는 것은 아니지만
Unofficial English translation
• So long as the principal parts of such statements are consistent, there is nothing in the statements that is irrational in light of the rules of experience or self-contradictory, and no motive or reason to make false statements adverse to the defendant is clearly revealed,
• without sufficiently considering the special circumstances in which the victim of, among others, sexual assault is placed in an individual and specific case,
• by the mere fact alone that, viewed in retrospect, the victim could have left the scene of the offense before the sexual intercourse, or that the victim did not resist with all his or her strength,
• comprehensively taking into account all circumstances, including the circumstances under which physical force came to be exercised, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of and after the sexual intercourse,
• Although the fact that the defendant's statements are irrational in light of the rules of experience and self-contradictory and thus cannot be believed does not itself become direct evidence establishing the facts charged,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1994. 9. 13. 선고 94도1335 판결, 대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2004도2221 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335 decided September 13, 1994, Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2221 decided June 25, 2004, etc.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1994. 9. 13. 선고 94도1335 판결(공1994하, 2695), 대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2004도2221 판결(공2004하, 1290), 대법원 2006. 11. 23. 선고 2006도5407 판결 / [2] 대법원 2018. 4. 12. 선고 2017두74702 판결(공2018상, 909) / [3] 대법원 2005. 7. 28. 선고 2005도3071 판결(공2005하, 1469), 대법원 2012. 7. 12. 선고 2012도4031 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where direct evidence consists of more than one person's statements, may a defendant's self-contradictory account still combine with them as an indirect circumstance?
The retrial judgment of the Daejeon High Court will show how the credibility test and the sexual-awareness sensitivity requirement are applied to these facts. Any amendment to Article 307(2) or Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, to Article 297 of the Criminal Act or to Article 5(1) of the Gender Equality Act would also require this entry to be read again, as would a later Supreme Court decision changing the treatment of a complainant's delayed disclosure.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where direct evidence consists of more than one person's statements, may a defendant's self-contradictory account still combine with them as an indirect circumstance?” vs Independent “When does an inconsistency in a complainant's account become sufficiently material to create reasonable doubt despite the contextual considerations identified by the court?”
The primary reading asks whether a defendant's self-contradictory account can combine with several witnesses' statements as an indirect circumstance, while the independent reading asks when an inconsistency in the complainant's account becomes material enough to create reasonable doubt.
개별적, 구체적인 사건에서 성폭행 등의 피해자가 처하여 있는 특별한 사정을 충분히 고려하지 않은 채 피해자 진술의 증명력을 가볍게 배척하는 것은 정의와 형평의 이념에 입각하여 논리와 경험의 법칙에 따른 증거판단이라고 볼 수 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 4 May 2018 (2017No477), left standing the first-instance acquittal on the rape charge. It held that the complainant's statements to the investigators and at first instance, taken with the circumstances it set out, did not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt: the text messages between the two had been deleted, the complainant ate with the defendant the day after the assault and met him about four more times, the motel CCTV showed no sign of fear, she had sent her husband a message saying she was sleepy, and she did not report the threats.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the circumstances the court below relied on were not necessarily inconsistent with the complainant's statement, and doubted that it had shown the 'sexual-awareness sensitivity' required in trying a sexual assault case, because it had not sufficiently weighed the complainant's special circumstances. It examined the record and found the statement consistent from the investigation to the first-instance trial and highly specific, with no internal contradiction, and it found the defendant's account inconsistent and self-contradictory, so that his claim of consensual relations four days after the assault was not credible. It therefore held the court below had misapprehended the law on free evaluation and violated the rules of evidence, and because the acquittal on rape stood in concurrence with the remaining convictions under the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the whole judgment had to be reversed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the main parts of the complainant's statement are inconsistent, or contain a part contradicting the statement itself, since the Court's presumption of credibility is conditioned on consistency.
- A case in which a motive or reason to give false statements unfavourable to the defendant clearly appears, which the Court named as the other condition for the presumption.
- A case in which the defendant's account is consistent and not irrational, so that the indirect-circumstance route described for a self-contradictory account does not apply.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, gather the complainant's statements from the investigation onward and mark every point of consistency and every difference, since the Court read the record against the whole account. Set the special circumstances of the complainant out separately, including the relationship with the defendant, the sequence of contacts after the assault and the timing of disclosure, because the Court examined each of these against the reasons given below. Then take the defendant's statements at each stage, first denial and later reversal included, and test each version for internal contradiction before using it as an indirect circumstance.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 자유심증주의의 의미와 한계 / 형사재판에서 유죄로 인정하기 위한 심증형성의 정도 및 피해자 등의 진술의 신빙성이 인정되는 경우 [2] 법원이 성폭행이나 성희롱 사건의 심리를 할 때 유의하여야 할 사항 및 성폭행 등의 피해자 진술의 증명력을 판단하는 방법 [3] 강간죄가 성립하기 위한 가해자의 폭행·협박이 있었는지 판단하는 기준과 방법 [4] 강간죄에서 공소사실을 인정할 증거로 사실상 피해자의 진술이 유일한 경우, 피고인의 진술이 경험칙상 합리성이 없고 그 자체로 모순되어 믿을 수 없다는 사정이 피해자 진술의 신빙성을 뒷받침하거나 직접증거인 피해자 진술과 결합하여 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 간접정황이 될 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning and limits of the principle of free evaluation of evidence / The degree of formation of belief required to find guilt in a criminal trial, and where the statements of the victim, among others, are found credible [2] Matters to which the court should attend when trying cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment, and the method of assessing the probative value of the statements of victims of sexual assault, among others [3] The standard and method of determining whether the perpetrator committed assault or threat for the crime of rape to be established [4] Where, in a rape case, the statements of the victim are in fact virtually the only evidence establishing the facts charged, whether the circumstances that the defendant's statements are irrational in light of the rules of experience and self-contradictory and thus cannot be believed may support the credibility of the victim's statements, or may constitute circumstantial evidence supporting the facts charged in conjunction with the victim's statements as direct evidence (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 증거의 증명력은 법관의 자유판단에 맡겨져 있으나 그 판단은 논리와 경험칙에 합치하여야 하고, 형사재판에 있어서 유죄로 인정하기 위한 심증형성의 정도는 합리적인 의심을 할 여지가 없을 정도여야 하나, 이는 모든 가능한 의심을 배제할 정도에 이를 것까지 요구하는 것은 아니며, 증명력이 있는 것으로 인정되는 증거를 합리적인 근거가 없는 의심을 일으켜 이를 배척하는 것은 자유심증주의의 한계를 벗어나는 것으로 허용될 수 없다. 피해자 등의 진술은 그 진술 내용의 주요한 부분이 일관되며, 경험칙에 비추어 비합리적이거나 진술 자체로 모순되는 부분이 없고, 또한 허위로 피고인에게 불리한 진술을 할 만한 동기나 이유가 분명하게 드러나지 않는 이상, 그 진술의 신빙성을 특별한 이유 없이 함부로 배척해서는 아니 된다. [2] 법원이 성폭행이나 성희롱 사건의 심리를 할 때에는 그 사건이 발생한 맥락에서 성차별 문제를 이해하고 양성평등을 실현할 수 있도록 ‘성인지 감수성’을 잃지 않도록 유의하여야 한다(양성평등기본법 제5조 제1항 참조). 우리 사회의 가해자 중심의 문화와 인식, 구조 등으로 인하여 성폭행이나 성희롱 피해자가 피해사실을 알리고 문제를 삼는 과정에서 오히려 피해자가 부정적인 여론이나 불이익한 처우 및 신분 노출의 피해 등을 입기도 하여 온 점 등에 비추어 보면, 성폭행 피해자의 대처 양상은 피해자의 성정이나 가해자와의 관계 및 구체적인 상황에 따라 다르게 나타날 수밖에 없다. 따라서 개별적, 구체적인 사건에서 성폭행 등의 피해자가 처하여 있는 특별한 사정을 충분히 고려하지 않은 채 피해자 진술의 증명력을 가볍게 배척하는 것은 정의와 형평의 이념에 입각하여 논리와 경험의 법칙에 따른 증거판단이라고 볼 수 없다. [3] 강간죄가 성립하기 위한 가해자의 폭행·협박이 있었는지 여부는 그 폭행·협박의 내용과 정도는 물론 유형력을 행사하게 된 경위, 피해자와의 관계, 성교 당시와 그 후의 정황 등 모든 사정을 종합하여 피해자가 성교 당시 처하였던 구체적인 상황을 기준으로 판단하여야 하며, 사후적으로 보아 피해자가 성교 이전에 범행 현장을 벗어날 수 있었다거나 피해자가 사력을 다하여 반항하지 않았다는 사정만으로 가해자의 폭행·협박이 피해자의 항거를 현저히 곤란하게 할 정도에 이르지 않았다고 섣불리 단정하여서는 아니 된다. [4] 강간죄에서 공소사실을 인정할 증거로 사실상 피해자의 진술이 유일한 경우에 피고인의 진술이 경험칙상 합리성이 없고 그 자체로 모순되어 믿을 수 없다고 하여 그것이 공소사실을 인정하는 직접증거가 되는 것은 아니지만, 이러한 사정은 법관의 자유판단에 따라 피해자 진술의 신빙성을 뒷받침하거나 직접증거인 피해자 진술과 결합하여 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 간접정황이 될 수 있다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제307조 제2항, 제308조 [2] 형사소송법 제308조, 양성평등기본법 제5조 제1항 [3] 형법 제297조 [4] 형법 제297조, 형사소송법 제307조, 제308조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger