A trip with three families who were close neighbors turned into a nightmare.

In the spring of 2018, the 9-year-old Yang family went on a family trip for 2 nights and 3 days to a recreational forest with their neighbors.



But the next morning, adoptive mother A felt strange when she saw her daughter coming out of the tent after being alone with B, a 47-year-old man living in the same apartment building.

Usually, Miss A followed Mr. B by calling him his uncle.



When A's mother asked her, "What did you do with her uncle?", she replied that Miss A said she was shy and couldn't speak to her.

She asked again, and she asked if Miss A would not scold her.



A's family stopped the trip and went home that way.

In the car on the way back, A's parents didn't say anything.

Ms. A complained of pain around her lower abdomen, and Ms. A's family visited the Sunflower Center, a sexual violence victim support institution.



Enlarge Image


In June 2019, the Daejeon District Prosecutor's Office brought Mr. B to trial on charges of molesting a child under the age of 13 (forcible molestation of a minor).

The prosecution judged that it was confirmed that Mr. B contacted his private parts with Miss A's body.

Mr. B denied the allegation, saying that there was no harassing act itself.

In the course of the first trial, the result of the National Forensic Service analysis that the saliva component of Mr. B was detected in Ms. A's underwear.



However, the 8th Criminal Court of the Daejeon District Court, which was the first trial, acquitted Mr. B, saying that there was insufficient evidence.



The judge explained the reason for the judgment, saying, "Mr. B's saliva (saliva) reaction appeared in Miss A's underwear, and DNA matching that of the defendant was detected, but the amount was not large because it was a weak positive reaction."

Rather, "Miss A seems to have a habit of touching her underwear, such as putting her hand in her pants, even at the time of the first police investigation," he said. We cannot rule out the possibility that the soiled saliva may have landed on the victim's underwear through another route."

It was judged that some of the saliva on the balloon entrance or on the back of Mr. B's hand could have passed through Miss A's hands and onto her underwear.



Enlarge Image


A's family could not be convinced, and the prosecution appealed.

However, in the course of the second trial, decisive evidence was found to overturn the verdict of the first trial.

This is from the DNA analysis room of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office.

The Supreme Prosecutor's Office's DNA analysis room is a secondary analysis agency that cross-verifies the NFS analysis results.

It also serves to supplement, supplement or correct errors in the National Forensic Service appraisal.



Prosecutors, who confirmed that only one underwear part was appraised during the police investigation stage, re-conducted a precise evaluation on a total of 46 parts, including 27 underwear parts and 19 pants parts.

The DNA analysis room of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office detected Mr. B's 'Y-STR DNA type' in a total of 17 sites.

The Y-STR DNA type is a type of gene, and refers to a short repeating segment of the Y chromosome that only exists in males.

Since this Y-STR DNA type matches only the same paternal line, such as father, son, and brother, it is often used in the investigation process to find out who the owner of the DNA type is among many suspects.

Crucially, among the sites where Mr. B's Y-STR DNA type was found, the semen reaction was confirmed positive in 7 sites.

Saliva was detected in 8 sites.



As objective evidence was revealed during the trial, the 1st Criminal Division of the Daejeon District Court, which was the second trial, sentenced the accused to two years in prison and arrested them in court.



The judge said, “The fact that a large number of saliva (saliva) positive reactions came out among the places where Mr. B’s DNA type was detected, and in particular, the fact that even semen positive reactions came out supports (Miss A’s) statement about the fact of the damage.” The reason for the judgment was explained.

Regarding the possibility that saliva on the mouth of the balloon or on the back of the hand passed through Miss A's hands to her underwear, it was judged that "the probability of saliva (saliva) positive reactions appearing in various parts of the underwear through multiple metastasis seems very low." .

The judge said, "Even though objective evidence has been revealed, Miss A is lying and is not reflecting. Normally, Miss A believed in, liked, and followed Mr. B, but Mr. B used this personal trust to forcibly molest Ms. A. It hurt me greatly,” he reprimanded.



Mr. B appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that the sentence was unfair.