Lee Jin-wook Case Debunked: Distorted & Twisted Facts On X
The case of the false accusation against Lee Jin-wook in 2016 is written based on narratives circulating on social media that tend to distort and twist the facts with accusations such as: LJW escaped punishment for rape because of Korea’s rigid legal system, insufficient evidence of violence, “lack of consent or insufficient consent is not considered rape,” consent = permission to enter A’s house, victim blaming, misogyny, patriarchy, and so on.
This article about the false accusation case against Lee Jin-wook in 2016 will detail the objective evidence that has been distorted and misrepresented, particularly by the “bebek” account on X and Korean brunch bloggers.
The summary of the Lee Jin-wook case will be divided into four main parts:
PART 1: DISTORTED CHRONOLOGY
PART 2: DISTORTION OF OBJECTIVE FACTS
- Non-verbal consent (mutual actions)
- Verbal consent (“Today is safe”)
- Romantic post-sex conversation
- Self-inflicted bruises
- Underwear evidence, etc.
PART 3: COURT RULING
PART 4: HATERS’ ACCUSATIONS VS. CASE FACTS
- Not Violent Enough???
- “He Admitted No Consent / No Asking Consent”???
- Consent = Permission to Enter A’s House?
- The Judge and LJW Labeled A as a “Snake Woman” (Gold Digger)
- Was A Forced by Police to Admit the Sex Was Consensual?
- Is LJW Innocent Only Because of Korea’s Rigid, Patriarchal, and Misogynistic Law — While “Playing Victim”?
- What Was A’s Motive for Making a False Accusation?
IDN Version Article:
https://ljwcase.blogspot.com/2026/02/leejinwook-tuduhan-palsu-fakta-yang.html klik here
The false accusation case against Lee Jin-wook will be presented concisely and based on verified sources, including court documents and official records, so readers can clearly distinguish which information is factual and which is driven by emotion without strong evidence.
Before continuing to the main discussion, please read the important disclaimer below.
REFERENCE
Verdict 2018
https://lbox.kr/v2/case/%EC%84%9C%EC%9A%B8%EC%A4%91%EC%95%99%EC%A7%80%EB%B0%A9%EB%B2%95%EC%9B%90/2017%EB%85%B82323
Verdict 2017
https://lbox.kr/v2/case/%EC%84%9C%EC%9A%B8%EC%A4%91%EC%95%99%EC%A7%80%EB%B0%A9%EB%B2%95%EC%9B%90/2016%EA%B3%A0%EB%8B%A89011
https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/213/0000893518
https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.naver? OR https://m.news.nate.com/view/20160721n10543 (Dispatch)
https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0106&key=201607271921288320&pos=
https://dogpiglab.blogspot.com/2025/04/leejinwook1.html?m=1
https://dogpiglab.blogspot.com/2025/04/leejinwook2.html or ( https://x.com/i/status/1954587365810544714)
CHRONOLOGICAL
CHARACTERS INVOLVED: D (ljw), A (accuser/defendant), B (ljw & A's acquaintance)
MEETING
🗓️July 12, 2016, 18:59
A received a message from a friend (B): “I’m with actor Lee Jin-wook right now, want to join dinner?” A accepted the invitation and joined them for dinner at a Japanese ramen restaurant.
🗓️July 12, 2016, 20:00
After eating, the three went to the friend’s house, watched TV, and chatted together.
The woman said: “I need to install curtains in my room, but no one can help me.”
Friend: “Hyung (Lee Jin-wook) can do it. He likes doing stuff like this.”
Lee Jin-wook: “I’ll install them for you.”
The woman: “Then, thank you.”
Friend: “Can I give him your phone number?”
The woman: “Okay.” (lbox.kr 2017 & 2018)
Additional Dispatch Report:
“Lee Jin-wook, A, and B ate ramen in Seorae Village the day before. They walked along the street eating ice cream for dessert. They passed a famous overseas burger restaurant. The three talked about hamburgers they had eaten in New York. During the conversation, A mentioned that S Burger is coming to Korea and promised to go together next time.”
The three-person meeting ended. The friend and Lee Jin-wook then went to a bar to meet other friends. The friend gave the woman’s phone number to Lee Jin-wook.
🗓️July 12, 2016, 23:49
Lee Jin-wook contacted the woman, said he would come to install the curtains, and asked for her home address. About 10 minutes later, the woman sent a screenshot of a map with her address.
🗓️July 13, 2016, 00:13
Lee Jin-wook arrived near the woman’s house.
🗓️July 13, 2016, 00:21
After getting a bit lost, he finally arrived at the woman’s house.
Additional Dispatch Note:
So Lee Jin-wook arrived at A’s house. It was past 12:20 AM. However, the process of Lee Jin-wook finding A’s house is not the core of this case. Anyway, this is a sexual violence case. The essence is whether there was coercion. And what happened is more important than the process of getting to the house. In other words, the core of this case is not “how he got to the house” but “what happened inside the house.” And here, the statements of the two people are very different.
VISIT TO A’S HOUSE
They chatted. The woman told him that her brother-in-law had bought her an expensive Marshall radio. Lee Jin-wook praised her house, and the woman mentioned that the 150 million won house was bought with her own hard work.
Lee Jin-wook checked the curtains and needed tools, but since there was no electric drill, he said installation couldn’t be done right then. (Kim dog pig & lbox.kr 2018)
Additional Dispatch Report:
Lee Jin-wook checked the curtains. It was assembly furniture bought from Company I. Difficult to install immediately because no electric drill or anything. Both wrote down the list of needed tools.
He asked permission to use the bathroom to remove makeup from filming, and the woman allowed it.
Lee Jin-wook was wearing makeup that day. He asked permission to go to the bathroom to wash his face. From then on, their statements completely differed. They disagreed on everything.
Lee Jin-wook’s claim: The woman directly helped by pouring cleanser on cotton and wiping his face several times.
Woman’s claim: She only explained how to use the cleanser.
Lee Jin-wook turned on the shower to wash his hair, but because the water was cold, he asked the woman to turn on hot water.
The woman thought Lee Jin-wook would shower and offered a T-shirt to change into.
Lee Jin-wook thought maybe he could finish curtain installation that day, then shower.
Lee Jin-wook’s claim: He came out of the bathroom wearing only shorts because his underwear worn all day felt dirty.
Woman’s claim: He came out wearing only underwear.
Court Note: Events before and after intercourse are consistent with D’s (LJW’s) statements and evidence:
Then, both had sexual intercourse. The process leading to intercourse is the most debated point and the most important part of this case.
INTERCOURSE
Lee Jin-wook: “I want to pull out.”
Woman: “Today is safe.”
Lee Jin-wook: “Not dangerous?”
Woman: “It’s only two days since my period ended. Safe.”
Woman’s claim: She said it had been two days since her period ended, but asked Lee Jin-wook not to ejaculate inside.
Lee Jin-wook: “Even so, I’ll pull out outside anyway.”
(lbox.kr 2018 )
AFTER INTERCOURSE
After showering, Lee Jin-wook came out and saw the woman had spread a blue blanket on the bed.
Woman’s claim: She never did that.
They lay on the bed and chatted for about 20 minutes. The woman talked about her dog she had raised for 18 years that died, showed a picture she drew herself, and mentioned she had been a musical actress.
Lee Jin-wook: “You must be good at singing. Sing something.”
Woman: “Not singing, but I can dance, haha.”
Lee Jin-wook: “Haha.”
Woman: “But oppa isn’t sleeping here, right?”
Lee Jin-wook: (Thinking: Is this a polite Kyoto way of saying it?) “Because of parking, probably not possible. I’ll leave first. Curtains I’ll install tomorrow.” (lbox.kr 2018)
🗓️July 13, 2016, 02:10
Lee Jin-wook took the curtain manual and left the woman’s house.
🗓️July 13, 2016, 10:04
A sent a friendly message to B (“morning ^^”) along with the restaurant address they would visit together, including LJW.
🗓️July 14, 2016, 10:00
The woman visited a clinic near her office and requested an examination citing sexual assault.
🗓️July 14, 2016, 16:00
The woman filed a complaint with the police, reporting sexual assault.
🗓️July 15, 2016, 13:00
A was immediately recalled to the police station for further questioning.
🗓️July 17, 2016
Lee Jin-wook underwent police investigation for 11 hours + travel ban abroad afterward.
A & LJW STATEMENTS AT POLICE STATION (please refer to the images)
Before entering into the evidence, I remind you, remember and pay close attention to the two arguments of the parties ABOVE (WITHOUT CONSENT ACCOMPANIED EXTREME VIOLENCE VS MUTUAL CONSENT), because this is the core of the case and the key to understanding the facts revealed.
🗓️July 21, 2016: Dispatch releases initial evidence from both sides.
Evidence from Party A: PHOTOS of bruises (KNEE, arms, neck and ankles), MEDICAL CERTIFICATE & stretched underwear.
Evidence from Ljw: screenshot of A sending a FRIENDLY MESSAGE "morning ^^", statement of the post-mortem results (not a document), history of conversation between Ljw and A, A giving the house address and front door code.
Dispatch was in a grey area at that time, BECAUSE the evidence released by Dispatch as of July 21st above was preliminary evidence and had not been verified further, the investigation was still ongoing and new evidence continued to emerge. Therefore, at the end of the report, Dispatch added an important note!!!!!
DISPATCH NOTES !!!!
There is only one truth. Someone is lying. One thing is certain: no one can jump to conclusions. There were only two people there (Dispatch, July 21, 2016)
https://m.news.nate.com/view/20160721n10543 & https://m.news.nate.com/view/20160725n04844?mid=e01
“There is only one truth. Someone is lying.” It is true that logically, two different versions of the story (no consent + extreme violence VS consensual) cannot both be true at the same time, right?
Korean and global legal standards In the case of "he said - She said" where 2 stories contradict each other (rape accompanied by extreme violence VS consensual) + incident in a closed room + without direct witnesses, the court does not choose based on who is more emotionally convincing/touching, not from a patriarchal, misogynistic point of view & also does not judge from A's moral such as: thin clothing, open sex, slut, already has a boyfriend, gold digger, etc. as accused by the duck account on X & Korean brunch Blogger, but the court judges based on:
1. credibility of testimony (including consistency of story)
2. consistency with emerging objective evidence
3. chronological logic of events
4. fulfillment of criminal proof standards
The allegation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on an assessment of the totality of the evidence not equating permission to enter A's house = consent. Now let's start at the proof stage.
PROOF
THE FOLLOWING ARE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DISTORTED AND TWISTED
PART 1: CHRONOLOGICAL DISTORTION
Thread Distortion Point 9 BEBEK Account & Korean Brunch
Main distortion:
The narrative “LJW came out WITHOUT underwear” is depicted as if LJW came out of the bathroom completely naked for no reason, then immediately had sex.
Facts recognized by the court:
LJW came out in a t-shirt + boxer shorts, only without underwear underneath because it felt dirty after wearing it all day.
Not completely naked as narrated.
Official court evidence:
Point 4 (lbox.kr 2017): A hears the sound of the shower, opens the bathroom door, and gives LJW the t-shirt she bought for her brother-in-law.
Footnote 6 (lbox.kr 2018): A claim LJW appeared wearing shorts.
https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/213/0000893518
Second distortion: Claims of facial washing assistance
LJW Claim: A direct help (pour cleansing water onto cotton, wipe directly on ljw face several times).
Claim A: Only verbally explain how to use it. Claim A (verbal only) tries to portray her self as a passive victim who “doesn't want to get involved anymore.”
Facts recognized by the court from the results of a legitimate investigation:
D on July 13 2016 at 00:20 went into the bathroom to remove his makeup, and the defendant (A) explained how to use the makeup remover by wetting cotton wool and wiping D's face several times (lbox.kr 2017).
→ The court explicitly acknowledged LJW's version as more credible: A actually wiped LJW's face directly (physical contact, own initiative), not just verbal instructions.
The logic:
LJW, an actor with a 10+ year career (2006–2016), definitely knows how to clean his face with a cleanser (a daily K-entertainment routine). It's illogical to need someone else's help.
Official sentence of the verdict (lbox.kr 2017):
“…the defendant explained how to use the makeup remover by wetting cotton wool and wiping D's face several times.”
It means:
A self-initiative to enter the bathroom.
A direct physical contact (wiping LJW's face with her hand).
Without LJW asking (“please clean my face”) or saying he doesn’t know how.
This is evidence of a comfortable & voluntary atmosphere in that moment — not the attitude of someone who is afraid or intimidated.
Vital Records!!!
This isn't a discussion of the entire timeline. This is a specific analysis of LJW's face-washing scene.
The purpose is simply to compare two claims: Claim LJW vs claim A
Then see which one is more credible based on facts that have been investigated & recognized by the court (lbox.kr 2017).
Not judging: “helping to wipe face = consent” or Who is morally right
Fact Distortion: “A went to the hospital & reported to the police the next day after it was light”
Korean Duck & Brunch Account Narration
As if: Lee Jin-wook came home → early morning after light of July 13th A went straight to the hospital & reported to the police.
Correct facts (lbox.kr & official timeline)
Intimate relations occurred in the early hours of July 13th ~01:00.
A went to a private hospital on July 14 at 10:00 → ±33 hours after the incident.
A reported to the police on July 14 at 16:00 → ±39 hours after the incident.
Conclusion :
The claim “the next day after it was light (July 13)” is completely wrong.
Not an immediate response on the morning of July 13, but 33–39 hours later — July 14.
This isn't just a wrong date — it's a time distortion.
Important note: this is not an assessment of late reporting = lying, this is just correcting the wrong narrative from the duck account on X and Korean Blogger brunch
Fact Distortion: “A went to the hospital but was denied medical treatment”
The Narrative from the Duck Account & Korean Brunch Blog
It sounds like this:
Lee Jin-wook went home → early morning on July 13, A immediately rushed to a private hospital, but they refused to treat her → making it seem like the legal system is completely against victims.
What Actually Happened (The Real Facts)
The private hospital did refuse to treat A — but this happened on the morning of July 14, not July 13.
When A called the police hospital (Rape Crisis Center), they accepted her right away. They offered her an immediate medical check-up and said they would start investigating the suspect quickly.
Here’s what A herself told TheFact media when she called the police hospital:
“If you do the test , we can start investigating the perpetrator right away.”
This means that even through a single phone call to the Police Hospital, she was immediately offered a forensic examination procedure and informed that if the test was conducted, the investigation against the alleged perpetrator could proceed quickly.
This shows that from the very beginning, the system had already implemented a “believe the victim” approach in line with procedures for protecting victims of sexual violence.
There was no victim blaming, no difficult or accusatory questions such as “what evidence do you have?”, “what were you wearing?”, or “report to the police first before coming here.”
On the contrary, what was offered was the preservation of evidence (forensic examination) as a crucial part of the 72-hour golden period.
This means that from the start, the case was directed to be proven through specific evidence (medical examination, DNA, forensics & victim protection), which is highly relevant for a claim of rape involving extreme violence as alleged by A, rather than based on moral judgment or victim blaming.
This also directly contradicts the narrative that the legal system is misogynistic or patriarchal — especially since this information comes from A’s own testimony in her interview with The Fact, not from any other party.
Important Facts About the 2016 Sexual Violence Victim Protection Act in Korea
Back in 2016, the law already required and provided these things for free:
➖A forensic medical exam (post-mortem style) at a Sunflower Center or police hospital
➖Free psychological counseling
➖Collection of evidence (DNA samples, clothing, etc.) within 72 hours
The system in 2016 was actually quite strong and victim-friendly — A had every chance to get her injuries documented, collect solid evidence, and have trauma (like PTSD) officially recorded.
But instead, she avoided it and later gave false information about getting medical care.
A’s story about her hospital visit changed four different times:
Version 1: “I was treated at the police hospital before I even reported it.” (Newdaily news)
Version 2: “I called the police hospital first, then went there after I filed the report.” (TheFact)
Version 3: “The staff told me to just take photos of my bruises at home.” (YTN News)
Version 4: “I only asked for emergency contraceptive pills” (she claimed she was in her fertile period — but police investigation proved that was not true). (YTN News & ilyo.co.kr article)
SC.
https://www.newdaily.co.kr/site/data/html/2016/12/15/2016121500093.html?fbclid=PAY2xjawJeSiBleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABp5lhy9LJYyq5An8RqPNCkniLIokc4aw468fUOCzoK2dgaKix-lOnDlNMgVGc_aem_HXno2MZujN-MZeZ2KtVJTg
https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0106&key=201607271921288320&pos=
https://m.ilyo.co.kr/?ac=article_view&entry_id=194563
Looking at the timeline logically:
If her main goal really was to get justice and prove what happened, the smartest and most normal first step would have been to accept the forensic medical exam right away.
The police hospital clearly told her: “Come in for the exam (visum) , and we can move fast on the investigation.” That was a wide-open door to strong evidence — especially for someone claiming extreme violence.
But the opposite happened: she stopped the process, changed her story about medical care, and the whole case got weaker.
This weakening didn’t come from a “rigid” or “anti-victim” law — it came from A’s own inconsistent choices.
Could it be trauma? Yes, real trauma is possible.
Many genuine victims hesitate to do invasive medical exams because they feel embarrassing, scary, or can make the trauma worse (re-traumatization).
Trauma can explain why someone delays or feels unsure.
But trauma doesn’t usually explain changing the main reason for going to the hospital.
Small details can be forgotten under stress — that’s normal.
But going from “I was treated” → “I only called” → “I only asked for the morning-after pill”?
That’s not just stress. That changes the core facts connected to evidence.
this is a fundamental change regarding when, why, and what was done at the police hospital.
A already knew a forensic exam was important — she had contacted the police hospital — the evidence path was completely open — yet she chose not to do it.
Instead, she washed the blanket and towels (reported by Dispatch on July 21, 2016) — which removed possible physical evidence.
If the real reason she eventually went to a clinic was only because she was scared of getting pregnant (not to check for violence injuries or collect rape evidence),
then that visit doesn’t help prove the criminal side of rape at all.
Because Fear of pregnancy can happen in consensual sex without protection too.
Moreover, in this case, there are many inconsistencies and contradictions.
At this point, A herself is the one who made the evidence weaker.
In criminal cases, courts look at behavior like this very carefully:
The more someone avoids or dodges evidence collection, the fewer solid facts there are, and the weaker the accusation becomes.
This matters even more when the claim is “extreme violence” with forced penetration and bruising on the thighs.
This isn’t about saying “a real victim would never do that.”
It’s simply this:
When someone makes a very serious criminal accusation, their actions usually match the goal of gathering strong proof.
A first said she went to a private hospital for sexual assault treatment.
But when the police hospital offered fast testing, treatment, and quick investigation, she backed out.
That’s why it’s fair for the court to see this as something that hurt her case — not because the law is harsh, but because the facts she gave kept changing and became unreliable.
A’s behavior in avoiding the police hospital’s offer suggests she may have wanted to avoid formal procedures, such as a proper medical/forensic examination.
Why does this matter?
Because the forensic medical examination (which was required and fully supported under the 2016 Sexual Violence Victim Protection Act) could have clearly detected and documented:
The pattern of injuries (how the bruises or wounds were formed)
The age of the bruises (exactly when they happened — very important for matching the timeline)
Any genital trauma (internal or external signs of forced penetration or violence)
Even though A claimed there was forced penetration, no genital bruising or trauma was ever reported in her statements or evidence (as noted by Court report & Dispatch).
This avoidance actually supports the forensic analysis from Seoul National University (SNU experts):
The bruises were most likely self-inflicted (more details on this will be explained later).
Factual Distortion: “A refused LJW to come at 11 pm, but finally allowed it after persuasion”
Korean Duck & Brunch Account Narrative: Implies “LJW’s persuasion” as pressure/intimidation → LJW forced his way into A’s house.
Facts recognized by courts & official sources
Indeed, LJW contacted first that night (because of the promise to put up curtains from the July 12 meeting).
But A gave the door address & password voluntarily — without any threats or intimidation (Dispatch chat/screenshot evidence).
Court records (lbox.kr 2018)
Footnote¹) The defendant (A) stated that he had conveyed his intention of rejection politely to D (ljw) who stated that he would visit his house, in return D stated that the defendant did say condescending words that 'hes house was simple/dirty', but that was not an intention of rejection. (lbox.kr 2018)
Dispatch Notes (July 21, 2016)
“Lee Jin-wook's process of finding A's house is not the core of the case.
This case is sexual violence — the essence is whether there was coercion.
What matters is what happens inside the house, not how it gets there.”
Facts when LJW arrived at A's house
A wasn't in a state of fear. They chatted casually: her brother-in-law bought an expensive Marshall radio, and A told him about her 150 million won house, the result of his own hard work . (lbox.kr 2018)
LJW praises house, checks blinds, writes tool list - no drill → installation postponed (Dispatch)
The evidentiary value if viewed in the overall context above:
There are no explicit threats.
There was no direct violence prior to the incident.
There is no clear coercive environment (a situation that makes it difficult for people to refuse because there is pressure) Friendly & equal atmosphere (remember that up to this point we are not assessing friendliness = consent)
First court decision (2017)
The facts before and after the incident are consistent with LJW's statement (D).
The duck account on X claims:
Duck account narrative:
“Bruises only become clear after 1–2 days, because the police asked for proof.”
Medical facts:
Yes, bruises can become more visible after 1–2 days,
BUT there are usually initial signs (redness / discoloration) from the very first hours.
A’s own claim:
Forced penetration + extreme violence.
Medical implication:
If sexual violence truly occurred (especially forced penetration + inner thigh pressure), there should be genital trauma (abrasions / tears / inflammation).
These are typically detectable immediately through a medical visum — no need to wait days.
A’s own admission in TheFact interview:
She called the police hospital and was told that a medical examination could immediately trigger the perpetrator’s investigation.
Meaning:
A actually had the opportunity to obtain strong evidence (visum / medical exam) and PTSD report — especially for her claim of extreme violence.
But A’s medical visit story kept changing:
• Claimed she went to the police hospital → Then only called →Then staff told her to take photos of bruises herself → Then she only went for emergency contraception pills
Distortion of facts: “But the police demanded proof”
The phrase “police demanded proof” is twisted to make it seem like the police didn’t believe A / outright rejected her report / portrayed police as “cruel” to female victims.
Actual facts (lbox.kr 2017 & 2018 + official timeline):
Police immediately accepted A’s report on July 14, 2016 at 16:00 — without any initial physical evidence.
The very next day (July 15, 2016), A was already recalled for further questioning (court indictment summary 2017).
This follows the standard procedure under the 2016 Sexual Violence Crime Act:
Accept the report first → collect evidence within 72 hours (DNA, injuries, clothing).
So “asking for proof” is not rejection or making it difficult for A — it’s a mandatory step to make the accusation provable in court.
If police had rejected it, A wouldn’t have been recalled so quickly — the case could have been closed immediately.
PART 2: DISTORTION OF FACTS ABOUT CONSENT & SELF-INFLECTED BRUISE
NON VERBAL CONSENT
LJW claims: I sat on the bed and A sat on the floor parallel to my left. We laughed after looking at each other. I approached A and reached out my hand, and A did the same, so I helped her up. Then I hugged her gently. As she stood swaying, I pleasantly stroked her back and brushed her hair. While hugging tightly, (I/we) held each other's buttocks and looked at each other again before finally kissing. (lbox.kr 2018)
1. Mutual physical active participation (supporting verbal consent)
A reached out to stand up after LJW reached out.
A responded to the hug with a hug back.
A also held each other's buttocks during a tight hug. A also joined in the kiss after making eye contact. (lbox.kr 2018)
These are all voluntary and reciprocal actions — not passive, not frozen, not forced.
According to affirmative consent, the reciprocal action ABOVE meets the standard of non-verbal consent,
Because:
Active Participation: Miss A's actions (responding to hugs, kisses, extending hands) indicate a clear and unambiguous willingness to engage in physical activity.
LJW claims:
“While hugging each other tightly, (I/we) held each other's buttocks, and looked at each other again before finally kissing.” (lbox.kr 2018)
Meaning:
There is a clear moment of non-verbal communication pause: eye contact.
There both parties have the perfect opportunity to:
– Reject (turn, push, step back)
– Or continue (keep staring, get closer)
A chooses to proceed with kissing → this is a very strong non-verbal consent at a crucial moment of transition to sexual activity.
The court considered this part of the “pleasant atmosphere” and “mutual agreement”.
While A's claims of extreme violence are inconsistent:
A then changes the claim from extreme violence (Legs lifted 90°, repeated vulva punching, forced penetration, etc.) - to "no coercion", which means she herself weakens the foundation of his initial accusation - from "forced by violence" to "no coercion" → automatically immediately favors LJW's version that the relationship was consensual and occurred with mutual consent.
https://m.entertain.naver.com/article/020/0002991882?fbclid=PAY2xjawJMDjNleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABpvzaFfSi6XTX_Sdp0jSrWmGaqSb3lY4Un9YRrOr5yhtdVAss8iTNWHkiBw_aem_PCnc38cbMMa1IzGlTThaCw
This isn't about "the victim has to be battered to be believed." It's about the consistency of the material facts recognized by the court:
If the claim of extreme violence suddenly disappears, and the evidence of verbal and non-verbal consent is strong, it is natural for the court to believe the version that is consistent and supported by objective evidence.
This is legal logic, not victim blaming.
Maybe A is traumatized? Trauma can make people doubt themselves.
They might be afraid to tell stories. They might also forget small details (times, small sequences) in a haphazard manner. That's normal.
But in general, trauma more often affects details that are not core.
not reversing the core of the event from “forced” to “no force”.
If what changes is the most fundamental part,
It's natural that people — including the courts — would start to question the initial version of A's claim.
And start to consider whether the claim of a relationship based on mutual consent is more in line with the facts.
VERBAL CONSENT
What LJW & A Said (According to their Statement):
LJW: “I want to pull out.”
A replied: “Today is safe.”
LJW asked again: “Not dangerous?”
A answered: “It’s only two days since my period ended. Safe.”
LJW confirmed: “Even so, I’ll pull out outside anyway.”
(Source: lbox.kr 2018)
The Woman's Claim:
She said she told him it was two days after her period ended, but she asked Lee Jin-wook not to ejaculate inside.
(Source: lbox.kr 2018)
Police Investigation Findings:
The report from the police hospital (the first place A visited) showed that A was not in her fertile period — exactly as Lee Jin-wook described.
This contradicted A's later claims about being in a high-risk fertile window.
A initially denied it but eventually admitted it when confronted with her own evidence (the hospital document she provided).
(Source: https://m.ilyo.co.kr/?ac=article_view&entry_id=194563 — article from July 29, 2016, citing Suwon Police Station: Police confirmed LJW accurately knew A's cycle, and the "today is safe" conversation indicated non-coercive, mutual intercourse.)
A, who initially denied it, eventually admitted after being confronted with the evidence she herself submitted, which actually supported Lee Jin-wook’s version of events.
What This Means:
The "today is safe" exchange was a clear, conscious, and explicit verbal communication about the sexual act (penetration + pregnancy risk).
A was not silent or passive — she gave an affirmative response (“safe”) and even shared medical info (her menstrual cycle) to reassure LJW.
This shows:
A understood what was about to happen.
She agreed to continue by giving a reason why it was “safe.”
→ Under modern affirmative consent standards, this is a very clear verbal yes.
In Terms of Legal Proof:
This objective evidence strengthens LJW's claim of voluntary and knowing consent.
There is no evidence that A was unconscious (drunk or drugged) OR frozen/stiff due to fear (freeze response).
This indicates ongoing consent (no withdrawal during the act), and both parties actively participated.
This was officially acknowledged by the first court (point 6 on the situation during intercourse):
① The defendant (A) never expressed any intention to refuse to D (LJW) or resist, and the sexual intercourse occurred naturally with mutual consent. (Source: lbox.kr 2017)
In Other Words:
The investigation findings and A's own admission automatically contradict her initial police claim (“Please stop! No! It hurts!” repeated).
This isn't the court simply "not believing A" — it's because her claim had no corroboration and actually clashed with evidence she herself submitted.
Logical & Objective Evidence from the “Today is Safe” Conversation:
If it truly was extreme violence as A initially claimed, it's highly unlikely there would be a calm, technical-rational discussion about fertility and ejaculation.
That kind of talk requires comfort and intimate collaboration — consistent with consensual sex, not force.
Could LJW have made up the fertility detail to avoid punishment?
No — LJW and A only met on July 12, 2016 (Dispatch & lbox.kr).
Every woman's fertile period is different — LJW couldn't possibly know “today is safe” unless A told herself.
Police investigation confirmed: LJW's statement matched A's actual menstrual cycle.
→ This is objective proof the dialogue really happened, not fabricated.
Strengthened by Non-Verbal Consent:
Mutual actions (holding hands, returning hugs, grabbing buttocks, kissing).
Pleasant atmosphere and friendly interaction.
Officially recognized by the court (lbox.kr 2018).
From LJW's Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) Perspective:
There is no evidence he knew or should have known consent was absent.
A's actions (active participation + “today is safe” + romantic post-event behavior) created a reasonable belief in consent for LJW — meaning the sexual act was mutually agreed upon → any criminal intent falls away.
POST - SEX BEHAVIOR : ROMATIC CONVERSATION
After the act ended: They kissed again.
A spread out a blue blanket.
They had a casual 20-minute chat about her dog, her past career in musical theater, her ability to dance, and a painting of her dog. (Source: lbox.kr 2018)
The next morning, A sent a friendly “morning ^^” message to B (including plans to eat together again).
This shows no immediate regret or signs of acute trauma — which strongly contradicts her initial claims of “being punched in the vulva, spat on, in pain, please stop repeatedly.”
A initially admitted only that the conversation happened before sex, but when confronted with specific evidence, she finally acknowledged it happened after.
The court stated:
Events before and after intercourse were consistent with D’s (LJW’s) claims.
(Source: lbox.kr 2017 & 2018)
Logical Question: How could LJW know details about A’s musical career?
They only met on July 12, 2016 (Dispatch & lbox.kr).
During the group dinner, A introduced herself as an ordinary office worker — she never mentioned her musical theater background.
It would be impossible for LJW to fabricate this.
Details like the blue blanket, the painting of her 18-year-old pet dog, A’s dancing ability, and her musical career were easily verifiable by police.
If LJW had lied about them, it would have been "legal suicide" — his credibility would have been completely destroyed in court, especially as a public figure under intense scrutiny.
LJW’s Claims Were Consistent with A’s Own Facts
In an interview with The Fact, A admitted that as a child she once went to the police when her dog went missing — showing her long-standing deep love for dogs. This supports LJW’s account of their post-sex conversation about the dog painting.
Additionally, LJW knowing that A could dance was hard to fake: musical theater performers are typically well-trained in dance, and this aligns perfectly with A’s actual career history.
(Source: https://www.segye.com/newsView/20160728001917)
Objective Evidence Supporting Consent
Non-verbal: Mutual actions (holding hands, returning hugs, grabbing buttocks, kissing).
Verbal: “Today is safe” + confirmation of her menstrual cycle.
Post-sex: Romantic and relaxed conversation (about dog, musical career, painting), more kissing, friendly “morning ^^” message.
Officially Recognized by the Court
Verdicts in 2017 & 2018 (lbox.kr):
“A never expressed any intention to refuse or resist; instead, the sexual intercourse occurred naturally with mutual consent.”
The details of the romantic post-sex conversation were too specific and easily verifiable to be fabricated. The non-verbal, verbal, and post-sex evidence all reinforced each other.
The court acknowledged that the relationship was consensual — not because the legal system is rigid, patriarchal, or misogynistic, but because the emerged facts were consistent and verifiable, ultimately strengthening LJW’s claim of consensual sex.
SELF - INFLICTED BRUISE
Expert Opinion on Self-Inflicted Bruises
Read the expert view here: Prof. Lee Jeong-bin’s forensic analysis on self-inflicted injuries / https://www.huffingtonpost.kr/article/33569
Analysis of Self-Inflicted Bruises
1. Location & Pattern of Bruises Inconsistent with Sexual Violence
Prof. Lee Jeong-bin (forensic expert) opinion:
“The location of the injuries is not convincing.”
In typical rape resistance cases, bruises appear irregularly in areas such as:
Inner arms/legs
Head, collarbone
Breasts, vulva/groin area
A’s bruises (from Dispatch photos):
Only on the outer arms, knees, upper neck, upper chest, and ankles.
No bruises at all recorded in the genital area, inner thighs, vulva, or groin.
Yet A’s initial police claim was:
Extreme violence → legs held at 90 degrees, vulva punched, forced penetration. (lbox.kr 2018)
Logical point:
If there truly was violence like that (inner thigh pressure + forced penetration), there should be bruises or injuries in the genital area, inner thighs, or groin from resistance or penetration itself.
But nothing — medical reports, notes, and Dispatch photos show zero in those areas.
This isn’t about saying “not every rape has genital injuries” or “every case must have genital trauma.”
The issue is: A herself claimed extreme violence specifically in the inner thigh + forced penetration area.
If true, medical evidence should match — but it doesn’t.
This is a major anomaly and suspicious →this means the evidence A submitted contradicts her own story.
2. Nature of Injuries as Hesitation Marks (Self-Inflicted)
Prof. Lee Jeong-bin identified A’s bruises as “hesitation marks” (typical of self-inflicted wounds):
Shallow, parallel, non-fatal — classic pattern when someone creates simulated injuries themselves, not from random attack.
Real assault bruises (from punches/slaps) are usually asymmetrical, deep, and leave defensive marks.
A’s bruises:
Shallow parallel scratches on arms — look like made with a blunt object (comb or similar), not nails or punches.
Knee bruises: look like deliberate bumping (one side only), not symmetrical punches that would affect both sides.
Point 1: Locations Easy to Self-Access for Simulation
Hesitation marks/self-inflicted wounds usually appear in easily reachable areas by the person themselves, such as:
Wrists, arms, neck, chest, abdomen
A’s bruises (knees, arms, neck, ankles) perfectly match this pattern — all locations someone can reach and create alone without help.
This is not typical for external sexual violence, where forced attacks usually leave marks in hard-to-reach spots (inner thighs, vulva, lower back, protected body sides).
This aligns exactly with forensic expert Prof. Lee Jeong-bin:
A’s bruise locations are not convincing as results of external violence, but highly consistent with self-inflicted simulation.
Point 2: No Defensive Injuries on Lee Jin-wook
Police examined LJW’s naked body: zero defensive wounds (no scratches, bites, or bruises from hard resistance).
Yet A claimed:
Fierce resistance (twisting body, running to kitchen, leg holding, underwear struggle, vulva punching).
Real fight/resistance usually leaves marks on both sides (scratches, bruises on attacker’s hands/arms).
Hesitation marks/self-inflicted leave no marks on the other person.
This confirms A’s bruises were self-inflicted, not from assault — consistent with A changing her claim from “extreme violence” to “no force.”
Don’t misunderstand the expert opinion on “no defensive injuries”
This is not saying:
“Victims must fight back to be believed” “No resistance = not credible”
“Victim should have fought harder” & It's also not about "A didn't have time to resist"
because in this case, A herself claimed she resisted by twisting her body and running to the kitchen.
It’s simply logical from A’s own claim of “fierce resistance” (body twisting, underwear pulling, running to kitchen, body pinning, legs lifted 90°, vulva punching).
If that level of struggle really happened, marks would appear on LJW — but police visum (full body exam) found none.
Point 3: No Defensive Injuries Also Logical from A’s Changing Claim
A initially claimed “extreme violence” (legs at 90°, vulva punch, underwear struggle).
Later changed to “no force.”
This change itself explains why no defensive injuries appeared on LJW.
If the extreme violence & hard resistance story was true, marks would exist — but since A herself shifted to “no force,” the absence of marks on LJW makes perfect sense.
Point 4: No Defensive Injuries Also Logical from Active Consent Evidence (Before, During, After)
Before: A voluntarily let him in, casual chat about Marshall radio, her 150 million won house, helped clean his face, lent T-shirt, suggestive joking about nudity (not yet full consent — don’t twist).
During: Mutual non-verbal consent actions (hand holding, returning hugs, grabbing buttocks, kissing), verbal “today is safe.”
After: More kissing, blue blanket spread, casual romantic chat about musical career, dog, dancing, painting, “morning ^^” message + plans to eat together.
This shows ongoing consent (no withdrawal) and active participation from both sides during the entire act.
This was officially acknowledged by the first court (point 6 on the situation during intercourse):
① The defendant (A) never expressed any intention to refuse to D (LJW) or resist, and the sexual intercourse occurred naturally with mutual consent. (lbox.kr 2017)
All the evidence above aligns perfectly with “no resistance” and “no defensive injuries.”
Simple Analogy:
Imagine two people having dinner together.
They chat casually, share food, laugh together.
The next day one says “I was forced to eat.”
But CCTV & messages show everyone was happy and enjoying it.
Naturally people would say: “The forced-eating story doesn’t match what actually happened.”
Then the duck account counters the expert opinion above with the following narrative:
The duck account often uses evasion tactics whenever A’s evidence is contradicted by emerging objective evidence. One of their favorite tricks is to twist the term “hesitation marks” to make it seem like the judge was “grasping at straws” or “looking for loopholes” to claim “the bruises were not severe enough” (not violent enough) or “the injuries were too light to be evidence of violence.”
This is a deliberate negative framing: as if the judge used the term “hesitation marks” to dismiss the evidence and show no empathy toward the victim. In reality, hesitation marks is a standard forensic concept used to describe the pattern of self-inflicted wounds, not a subjective judgment of “not severe enough.”
The duck account’s narrative — “Hesitation marks = the injuries are not severe enough / it’s too light for sexual abuse because it’s an unprofessional term” — is a major distortion and a scientific falsehood.
Hesitation marks refer to the pattern of the wounds, not whether they are “not severe enough” or “not strong enough to prove violence.” It is a globally recognized forensic concept used in medical literature to distinguish self-inflicted injuries from assault.
Hesitation marks is a standard forensic term used by pathologists worldwide to identify self-inflicted wound patterns. Its characteristics are clear:
➖Shallow, regular, parallel wounds (like repeated scratching)
➖Located in easily reachable areas (forearms, upper chest, neck, knees, wrists)
➖Not random, deep, or defensive wounds typically caused by punches or forceful grabbing
➖This pattern appears because people who harm themselves often “hesitate”: they apply light pressure, stop, then apply pressure again — resulting in gradual, shallow, and multiple parallel scratches.
A’s bruises perfectly match this pattern: shallow scratches on the arms, knees, and upper chest — relatively regular, with no inner thigh bruises, no genital trauma, and no defensive wounds, even though A claimed “forced penetration and repeated vulva punching.”
Forensic expert from SNU (Prof. Lee Jeong-bin) concluded that A’s bruises were self-inflicted.
This is not a personal opinion — it is a scientific analysis of wound patterns. So do not twist it into “not violent enough.”
Logically, what forensic expert would risk their academic reputation in such a high-profile case?
If their opinion was nonsense or contradicted scientific literature, it would have been heavily criticized by the forensic community — it could even be considered malpractice, loss of credibility, or lead to ethical complaints.
Yet in this case, Prof. Lee Jeong-bin’s analysis stands: A’s bruises were self-inflicted — and there has been no substantial scientific rebuttal from the opposing side. This means the opinion is grounded in facts, wound patterns, and accountable literature.
The most fatal point:
A’s initial claim was “extreme violence” (repeated vulva punching, legs held at 90°, forced penetration, fierce resistance) — yet there were no inner thigh bruises and no genital trauma.
Then A completely backtracked and admitted “there was no force at all.”
Forensic evidence shows: A’s wound pattern does not match extreme sexual violence, but is highly consistent with self-inflicted injuries (hesitation marks/self-inflicted).
Combining these facts:
If the injuries were “not severe enough for violence” as the duck account claims, why did A initially insist there was severe physical violence?
It means the injury evidence did not support her violence claim → A realized her wounds didn’t match her own story. If she continued, the lie would be exposed → so A finally admitted “there was no force.”
This is evidence that A herself realized the wound pattern (hesitation marks) did not match her initial story (extreme violence) → that’s why A eventually admitted “there was no force.”
Even the judge himself stated: “but it is also not possible to say that oppressive tactics were used.”
Meaning of “oppressive tactics” (lbox.kr 2018): There is no evidence of force, intimidation, physical/psychological pressure, power imbalance, or conditions that made A’s consent unfree (intoxication, unconsciousness, fear, medically proven freeze response). “Oppressive tactics” encompasses all forms of coercion, both physical and psychological. None were proven in this case.
Simple analogy:
Someone says, “I was hit hard by a car and almost died!”
But:
Doctor’s result: only minor scratches, the pattern looks more like she fell by herself.
The next day she says, “Actually, there was no car accident, I just fell lightly.”
The problem is not “the collision wasn’t hard enough.”
The problem is: the car accident never happened — and she herself eventually admitted it.
In the context of the A vs LJW case, the duck account refuses to accept and rejects two facts: the forensic expert’s analysis + the contradictions in the evidence and A’s own admission. Instead of discussing that, the duck account twists the scientific term “hesitation marks” into the narrative “the injuries were not severe enough” (not violent enough). This changes the forensic meaning, which should be about the pattern and origin of the wounds, into a subjective judgment of “severe or not severe.”
As a result, the focus is shifted to create an emotional narrative (“The hesitation is exactly just another term for saying it is not severe enough to be done by a 2nd party” & “they cannot say ‘it’s too light for a sexual abuse’ because it’s unprofessional terms”) for emotional framing: the judge is victim blaming / the system is “rigid,” “misogynistic,” “patriarchal,” “not pro-victim,” “no resistance is considered consent,” and “the injuries are considered not severe enough / the victim must be badly beaten.”
Meanwhile, what is actually being avoided is the simple fact: the wound pattern does not match A’s claim of extreme violence.
This trick only diverts attention from the contradiction in the evidence; it does not refute the facts.
The analogy is: like someone claiming their car was hit hard, but the mechanic finds that the scratches look more like they were self-inflicted in the garage. Instead of discussing the examination results, the narrative is shifted to “the mechanic doesn’t care about the victim’s car / According to the mechanic, the collision wasn’t hard enough.” 🖍️
The point is the same: the physical evidence does not match the story, so instead of addressing that, they attack the person who examined the evidence.
Learn here how the police uncovered false accusations through inconsistency of injuries using forensic analysis + claim inconsistencies:
➖ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_rape_hoax
➖ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/duke-lacrosse-players-false-rape-accusations-2006-crystal-mangum/
➖ https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/false-allegations-of-adult-crimes
This article explains how investigators identified false accusations by examining the inconsistencies between the reported injuries, forensic evidence, and the overall narrative.
UNDERWEAR EVIDENCE & ITS LEGAL STATUS
Legal Status of the Underwear
✅ Strong proof that sexual intercourse occurred (LJW’s DNA/semen was present).
❌ Weak as evidence of rape or coercion.
Semen only proves sexual contact happened — it does not prove whether it was consensual or forced.
The Tearing of the Underwear Is Not Automatic Proof of Violence
The tear could result from forceful pulling/struggling, but it can also come from:
Intense sexual activity
Already weak or worn-out fabric
Repeated body movements
Without forensic analysis of the tear pattern + correlation with body injuries, it cannot be automatically concluded as proof of force.
Moreover, the underwear evidence is further weakened by A’s own change of claim.
Initially, A claimed “extreme violence → the underwear was torn due to force.”
Later, A changed her claim to “there was no force at all.”
This change automatically destroys the value of the underwear as evidence of violence.
Semen/DNA Only Proves “Sex,” Not “Rape”
Semen cannot distinguish between voluntary and forced acts.
It would be dangerous if torn underwear (with DNA) were treated as the main evidence without proper context (refusal, pressure, injuries), because physical evidence can be manipulated (e.g., intentional tearing, DNA from consensual sex). Especially in this case, where there are major, repeated contradictions and even evidence manipulation.
To elevate it to proof of rape, it needs context: genital trauma, defensive injuries, consistent visum, and clear refusal. None of these existed in A’s case.
A Had the Opportunity to Obtain Stronger Evidence — But Avoided the Offered Visum
The police hospital offered a full visum + immediate investigation (“If you undergo the test, the perpetrator’s investigation will start right away” — TheFact).
However, A refused, and her medical story kept changing (was treated → only called → only asked for emergency contraception).
If her final admission was that she went to the hospital because she was afraid of getting pregnant
(not for a violence visum, injury proof, or force evidence),
then that visit has no probative value for the criminal elements of rape — because fear of pregnancy is also common in consensual unprotected sex.
At this point, A herself weakened her own case — not the system or “rigid law.”
The Police Themselves Said the Underwear Evidence Was Not Enough
Underwear + semen only proves sexual intercourse, not rape (according to the beyond reasonable doubt standard).
(Source: https://www.donga.com/news/Society/article/all/20160724/79375663/2)
In addition, the underwear evidence is weak because it is tied to A’s inconsistent claims.
Contradictions in A’s Claims
A accused vulva punching + forced penetration.
But there was no genital injury/trauma in any medical report.
This is a serious mismatch between her claim and the objective evidence — meaning the evidence she submitted contradicts her own story.
Supported by Self-Inflicted Bruises & Consent Context
Forensic analysis + the appellate judge’s finding (“no oppressive tactics”) support that the bruises were self-inflicted.
“Oppressive tactics” include all forms of coercion: physical violence, threats, psychological manipulation, power imbalance, or conditions making consent unfree (intoxication, unconsciousness, medically proven freeze response).
Meanwhile, the evidence of consent is strong: mutual actions, “today is safe,” relaxed post-sex conversation, and the “morning ^^” message
A FAILED THE POLYGRAPH TEST
https://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/273308/20160801/lee-jinwook-lie-detector-sexual-assault-case-result-woman-scandal.htm
The polygraph test (lie detector) in Ms. A’s case is not absolute proof and also not the sole evidence. However, as an investigative tool, it strongly supports and reinforces all the contradictions and inconsistencies: her contradictory attitude, changing stories, conflicting evidence, shifting admissions, evidence manipulation, and the facts that emerged during the investigation.
This is not a coincidence. The polygraph functions as a “credibility checker” that highlights the pattern of A’s lies, like a nail that ties together all of A’s falsehoods.
It serves as part of a comprehensive investigative record, not something random — because this test supports the entire chain of facts.
PART 3: COURT RULING
Based on the evidence above, that is why the appellate court stated:
What does it mean that “Lee Jin-wook’s claim that the sexual relationship was consensual is credible”?
It means LJW’s story about the consensual relationship was consistent from beginning to end (it never changed).
It was also consistent with the supporting evidence:
Mutual actions (non-verbal consent)
The ejaculation dialogue “today is safe” (verbal consent)
Romantic post-sex behavior (kissing again, talking about the dog painting, musical career, etc.)
No verbal or non-verbal refusal
Friendly message the next day (lbox.kr 2017 & 2018 & Dispatch)
The court even emphasized regarding the situation during intercourse:
“A never expressed refusal or resistance; the sexual intercourse occurred naturally with mutual consent” (lbox.kr 2017 & 2018).
https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/213/0000893518
What does it mean that “the defendant’s statement is difficult to believe”?
Meanwhile, A’s story was full of inconsistencies (from extreme violence → “there was no force,” changes in her medical visit claims, lying about medical treatment, failing the polygraph — although not the sole evidence).
When the admission “there was no force” appeared:
→ The cause of violence automatically collapsed
→ The bruise evidence lost its direction
→ It could no longer be attributed to LJW
This is exactly where the scientific forensic expert opinion on self-inflicted bruises becomes relevant.
(Original source: https://www.huffingtonpost.kr/article/33569)
https://www.allkpop.com/article/2016/07/plaintiff-in-lee-jin-wooks-alleged-sexual-assault-case-confesses-to-making-false-charges
In addition, A claimed there was violence in the inner thigh area (legs lifted 90° + repeated vulva punching + forced penetration: lbox.kr 2018). However, in the bruise report that she herself published through Dispatch, there was not a single mention or record of bruises in the inner thigh area or genital trauma.
This means it is not “lack of evidence / not violent enough,” but the evidence refutes the story. In other words, the evidence A presented contradicts and denies her own story.
It is important to understand that this does not mean a victim must be badly beaten or must have genital trauma to be believed — and yes, there are real rape cases without injuries or genital trauma. That is true.
BUT A’s case is different, because:
A claimed severe physical violence (legs lifted 90°, repeated vulva punching, and forced penetration), and A submitted bruise photos as evidence of that violence.
Once her force claim collapsed due to her own admission, the bruise evidence she submitted automatically became a boomerang — it lost any legally valid causal source, especially since she boldly spread it through Dispatch.
Logical Conclusion:
So in this case, it is not “lack of violence evidence / not violent enough / not believing the victim,” but the existing evidence directly refutes A’s own story. In criminal law, this is fatal because cause and effect do not connect.
Analogy:
Imagine you say: “My motorcycle is damaged because someone crashed into it.”
Then you also say: “Actually, there was no crash at all.”
But you still show the scratched motorcycle and say:
“This is the proof.”
People will naturally ask: 👉 “If there was no crash, where did the scratches come from?”
Not because people are mean.
But because the story doesn’t add up.
If all of that actively shows “it didn’t happen as claimed,” then:
The story is not just unproven — it is refuted.
Therefore, “credible” is not about who is more famous or more liked, nor judged by how touching or dramatic the story is, nor victim blaming such as thin clothes, open sex lifestyle, being flirty, etc. It is about 👉 whether the story remains strong when tested against facts and logic.
Next hater narrative: “The appellate verdict above is due to the rigid legal system that only looks at physical violence.”
Yes, that’s because they only read half of the verdict. In the next paragraph, the judge actually considered A’s inner state.
https://www.soompi.com/article/1121055wpp/woman-accused-lee-jin-wook-sexual-assault-receives-sentence
The judge wrote “against Oh’s inner wishes” = uncomfortable internally.
This means the possibility that A felt uncomfortable in her heart/mind was still considered by the judge — not only focusing on “physical evidence/violence” alone.
However, the phrase “against Oh’s inner wishes” is often twisted by haters to make it seem as if the judge ignored consent / lack of consent / psychological pressure / fear / that “lack of consent or no consent is not considered rape.”
“Against Oh’s inner wishes” is actually the judge’s cautious hypothesis for the sake of justice. It means the judge examined all possibilities, including the possibility that A felt uncomfortable internally. This logic is perfectly consistent with modern rape law standards.
Inner state can be considered. But it cannot stand alone without objective indicators showing the absence of consent or the presence of coercion.
Why did the judge say “it is difficult”?
Because any legal standard (including modern ones) cannot rely solely on something subjective, such as inner feelings (“against inner wishes”) or what is inside someone’s mind. It is difficult to measure, difficult to verify, and prone to bias.
Therefore, inner discomfort alone is not sufficient to prove rape. Relevant? Yes. Sufficient on its own? No.
It must be supported by context and objective evidence. Especially in this case, where there are many contradictions and inconsistencies — both in actions, emerging evidence, and A’s own story, even up to evidence manipulation.
If “just inner discomfort” were considered enough without objective evidence → anyone could be falsely accused. Anyone could accuse and imprison someone simply by claiming “I was scared” or “I didn’t agree in my heart” with no evidence at all.
From the mens rea (guilty mind) perspective:
If A’s discomfort existed only internally (“against Oh’s inner wishes”), but her actual behavior was actively consenting:
Non-verbal consent: returning hand-holding, mutual hugs, grabbing buttocks, and mutual kissing
Verbal consent: saying “today is safe” (lbox.kr 2018), and the court even emphasized regarding the situation during intercourse: “A never expressed refusal or resistance; the sexual intercourse occurred naturally with mutual consent” (lbox.kr 2017)
Post-sex: continued kissing, relaxed conversation (about the dog, musical career, painting), and even sending a “morning ^^” message
How could Lee Jin-wook possibly know that A was actually uncomfortable or did not agree?
Objectively, this entire chain of actions would reasonably create a reasonable belief in consent for Lee Jin-wook — that the relationship occurred on the basis of mutual liking. Therefore, there is no basis to say he knew or should have known that consent was absent, so the element of criminal intent (mens rea) is not fulfilled.
That is why the judge added the key sentence:
“but it is also not possible to say that oppressive tactics were used.”
Meaning of “oppressive tactics”: There is no evidence of force, intimidation, physical/psychological pressure, power imbalance, or conditions that made A’s consent unfree (intoxication, unconsciousness, fear, medically proven freeze response). “Oppressive tactics” encompasses all forms of coercion, both physical and psychological. None were proven in this case.
This is not ordinary wording — it is a firm, emphatic clarification that closes any room for misinterpretation.
A had a golden opportunity to prove her inner discomfort (PTSD / psychological pressure like “fear”):
The police hospital offered a full visum + fast investigation of the perpetrator (TheFact). Rape crisis centers usually provide psychological/forensic reports for claims of extreme violence like A’s.
But A avoided it and kept changing her medical visit story:
Version 1: Went to the police hospital before reporting for treatment & medical letter.
Version 2: Called first, went after reporting & online lawyer consultation.
Version 3: Staff told her to take bruise photos at home.
Version 4: Only asked for emergency contraception because “fertile period” (but police proved A was not fertile as LJW claimed).
If her final admission was going to the hospital because she feared pregnancy,
(not for violence visum or proof of force/injury — which would be relevant to her extreme violence claim),
then it has no probative value for the criminal elements. Because fear of pregnancy is also common in consensual unprotected sex.
At this point, A herself weakened her case — not the rigid legal system.
If she had followed the police hospital’s offer, she could have obtained strong evidence: visum results, psychiatric/forensic report, even PTSD evaluation or post-incident psychological pressure assessment.
From the power imbalance perspective: There is no evidence of imbalance between A and LJW.
They met through a mutual friend, both independent adults, equal social status.
Not a hierarchical relationship like boss-employee or fan-idol that is vulnerable to manipulation.
A had no economic dependence on LJW.
A owned her own house (150 million won from her own hard work), came from a wealthy family (academic business) — not a vulnerable dynamic open to manipulation (lbox.kr 2017 & 2018 & Dispatch).
Other objective evidence actually supports LJW’s version and strengthens consent:
Non-verbal: mutual actions (hand-holding, returning hugs, grabbing buttocks, kissing).
Verbal: “today is safe” + menstrual cycle confirmation.
Post-sex: more kissing, 20-minute relaxed chat, “morning ^^” messagge
https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/001/0009867963?sid=102
📌Actually, if you readers stop right here (Part 3), the case is already clear and settled: the final court verdict (appeal 2018) stands based on objective evidence, credibility of testimony, and the beyond reasonable doubt standard.
Even in accordance with modern rape law standards, which consider A’s inner wish (emotional/psychological condition) — not just physical evidence alone.
However, since this case has been flooded with biased narratives and accusations such as:
“he admitted no consent,” “not enough violence,” “Korea’s law is rigid,” “patriarchy & misogyny,” “judge victim blaming,” “judge labeled A a snake woman/gold digger,” etc.—
I will continue the discussion specifically in Part 4 to debunk each hater claim one by one against the facts from court documents and official sources.
For those who want deeper analysis or are still curious about these narratives, feel free to continue to Part 4📌
PART 4: HATERS ACCUSATIONS VS REAL FACT
1. NOT VIOLENCE ENOUGH???
The narrative of “NOT VIOLENCE ENOUGH” is completely misguided. In this case, the appellate court explicitly stated that there was no violence at all:
Court said “but it is also not possible to say that oppressive tactics were used” (lbox.kr 2018).
This is a firm ruling: no objective evidence supports any claim of violence. There is no proof that LJW used force, intimidation, or pressure on A—physical or psychological.
“Oppressive tactics” here refers to all forms of coercion: physical violence, threats, psychological manipulation, power imbalance that prevents refusal, or conditions making consent unfree (e.g., intoxication, unconsciousness, fear, medically proven freeze response). None of these were proven in A’s case.
Here are the details of the evidence:
➖A forensic expert stated that A’s bruises were self-inflicted:
https://www.huffingtonpost.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=33569
This is consistent with other evidence that emerged, such as:
➖A initially claimed repeated beating to the vulva ➖ violence on the inner thighs ➖ as well as brutal forced penetration (lbox.kr 2017 & 2018)
Then A submitted and publicly released photos of the bruises to the media (Dispatch & lbox.kr 2017 & 2018)
However, in fact: no genital trauma was found ➖ no bruises on the vulva ➖ no bruises on the inner thighs
→ This creates a fatal contradiction between A’s claim and the physical evidence she herself submitted.
→ This is not merely “lack of violence evidence / not violent enough.”
This means The evidence A provided directly contradicts and refutes her own claim & Automatically exposes her own lies.
When the alleged injuries are highly specific and extreme, yet none appear in medical checks or evidence, the story collides with medical facts.
➖Initially, A claimed there was extreme violence: repeated slapping of the vulva, her legs forcibly held up to a 90-degree angle, forced penetration, and strong resistance.
Later, A herself changed her claim to “there was no force at all.”
https://www.joongboo.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1092631
If there was truly no force, then it makes perfect sense that no genital trauma, bruises on the inner thighs, or injuries to the vulva were found.
This change in her claim actually strengthens the forensic conclusion that her bruises were self-inflicted, not the result of sexual violence as she initially alleged.
➖The emerged evidence is consistent with consensual intercourse:
Mutual actions (non-verbal consent) ➖Conversation “today is safe for ejaculation inside” (verbal consent) ➖Relaxed post-sex chat (about the dog, musical career, painting), and even sent a “morning ^^” message. (lbox.kr 2018, Dispact & TheFact)
This is worsened by problematic additional evidence:
Bruise photos that do not meet forensic standards for sexual violence claims
Medical certificate whose credibility was questioned and deemed unreliable (Huffington Post Korea)
Then A admitted there was no force during the incident.
A’s admission and the evidence actually favor LJW and cut off the root cause of any violence claim.
If there was no force/violence at the time, then legally, the bruises cannot be linked to LJW.
This raises a crucial legal question that cannot be avoided:
If there was no violence from LJW, then where did the bruises come from?
This is not a moral question or victim-blaming—it is a question of legal causation.
Especially since A herself submitted the bruise photos as proof of violence.
Yet:
No genital trauma
No bruises in the claimed punched areas
No visum
No medical findings supporting her claim
→ The physical evidence she submitted contradicts her own account.
→ This is precisely where the forensic expert opinion on self-inflicted bruises becomes relevant.
When experts conclude the bruises were self-inflicted, it is not an accusation nor a requirement that victims must be severely injured.
It is a scientifically reasonable alternative explanation after the “violence by the perpetrator” cause was eliminated by A’s own admission.
Important clarification:
This does not mean victims must be battered to be believed, and yes, there are rape cases without injuries—that is true.
BUT A’s case is different, because:
A claimed severe physical violence (legs lifted 90°, repeated vulva punching, forced penetration)
A submitted bruise photos as evidence of that violence
Once the force claim collapsed, the bruise evidence she submitted became a boomerang—it lost any legally valid causal link.
Logical conclusion:
It is not “lack of violence evidence / not violent enough.”
The existing evidence directly refutes A’s own story.
In criminal law, this is fatal—cause and effect do not connect.
Analogy:
Imagine you say:
"My motorbike was damaged because someone hit it."
Then you also said:
"Actually, there wasn't a collision."
But you still show the scratched motorbike and say:
“Here's the proof.”
People will definitely ask: 👉 “If it wasn’t hit, where did the scratches come from?”
Not because of bad people / It's not because the collision wasn't severe enough / or that the victim must be severely injured.
But because the story doesn't connect.
Because in case A:
She claims severe physical abuse
She submitted photos of the bruises as evidence.
But she admitted there was no coercion.
Once the “no coercion” confession emerges: ➡️ the cause of the violence collapses ➡️ the evidence of bruising loses its way ➡️ can no longer be blamed on LJW
So this is not: ❌ “lack of empathy for the victim”
❌ “victim blaming” ❌ “the victim must be battered” But: ✅ basic logic: the cause must match the effect
If A claims there was no coercion, then logically the wounds or bruises can no longer be attributed to LJW—and when the cause of violence is dropped, the physical evidence actually weakens her own claim. Because:
body = evidence clothes = evidence
DNA = evidence time & location = proof
If all of that actively indicates “it didn't happen as claimed”, then:
The story is not only unproven — it is DEBUTED.
2. " HE ADMITTED NO CONSENT, NO ASKING CONSENT" ???
This narrative refers to the first-instance verdict that was later overturned on appeal. The phrase “did not explicitly consent” refers to the absence of an explicit verbal question such as:
The narrative “he admitted no consent / no asking consent” comes from a phrase in the first-instance court verdict that was later overturned: “did not explicitly consent.”
However, this phrase is often twisted and turned into media headlines as if there was no consent at all / as if LJW admitted he did not ask for consent (one example is by Asian Junkie media & @nwjns1st account on X, see the image below).
In reality, the phrase “did not explicitly consent” refers to the absence of an explicit verbal question such as:
“May I have sex with you?” or “Do you agree to have sex?”
However, the phrase “did not explicitly consent” is twisted to imply that because LJW did not ask for explicit verbal consent, it means there was no consent at all. This is a false equivalence.
The correct logic is:
No explicit verbal question ≠ No consent at all.
In many modern legal systems that recognize affirmative consent, consent can be given through either words (verbal) or clear mutual actions (non-verbal). The key word is “or”, not “and.”
In this case, initial consent was given through mutual non-verbal actions that occurred naturally. This is clearly recorded in the court documents as follows:
“We laughed after looking at each other. I stepped forward toward A and extended my hand, and A did the same, so I helped her stand up. Then I gently hugged her. While standing and swaying slightly, with a pleasant feeling I stroked her back and brushed her hair aside. While hugging tightly, we held each other’s hips and looked at each other again before finally kissing.” (lbox.kr 2018)
The sentence “I stepped forward toward A and extended my hand, and A did the same…” logically shows active participation from both sides, not a situation where one party was forcing and the other was passive or resisting.
The evidence of A’s consent (non-verbal) also meets the standard of affirmative consent if this case is reviewed under modern rape law standards, which accept active consent through words or clear mutual actions without pressure. (Remember: “or”, not “and”.)
That is why the judge added the key sentence:
“but it is also not possible to say that oppressive tactics were used.”
Meaning of “oppressive tactics” (lbox.kr 2018) : There is no evidence of force, intimidation, physical or psychological pressure, power imbalance, or any condition that made A’s consent unfree (intoxication, unconsciousness, fear, or medically proven freeze response). “Oppressive tactics” encompasses all forms of coercion, both physical and psychological. None were proven in this case.
Simple Analogy: The Handshake Analogy
Someone extends their hand to shake yours. You extend your hand back and shake it.
No one asks: “Do you explicitly consent to shaking hands?”
But the act of extending your hand back is a clear form of non-verbal consent to shake hands.
If someone later says:
“Because there was no explicit verbal question, the handshake was without consent and should be considered harassment,” that would clearly be absurd.
Why requiring an explicit verbal question is unrealistic:
➖If the law required formal words like “May I?” or “Do you agree?” at every step, then almost all spontaneous romantic interactions could be considered criminal.
➖If the absence of explicit verbal questioning is considered criminal, then many romantic scenes in films could be accused of normalizing harassment or even rape. That is clearly unrealistic.
➖Humans do not live their lives like business contracts that always use official language. That is why criminal law does not demand a specific verbal script.
➖Criminal law only needs to assess whether there was reasonable consent based on the overall actions and attitudes of both parties (totality of evidence).
Therefore, the phrase “there was no explicit question” does not automatically mean “there was no consent,” because consent can be formed through clear and ongoing mutual actions.
In addition, the non-verbal consent in this case is also supported by verbal consent:
A said “today is safe,” and the court even emphasized regarding the situation during intercourse: “A never expressed refusal or resistance; the sexual intercourse occurred naturally with mutual consent” (lbox.kr 2017). Post-sex: they continued kissing, had a relaxed conversation (about the dog, musical career, painting), and even sent a “morning ^^” message. (lbox.kr 2018, Dispact & TheFact)
https://www.joongboo.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1092943
From the mens rea perspective: If A actively participated, how could LJW know that A was uncomfortable or did not consent?
Objectively, the entire chain of actions would reasonably create a reasonable belief in consent for Lee Jin-wook — that the relationship occurred on the basis of mutual liking. Therefore, mens rea is not proven here.
Another Simple Analogy:
Cooking Together vs. the LJW Case
Imagine you invite a friend to cook together in the kitchen.
You didn't say directly "Want to cook together?"
But you take the vegetables & knife, your friend smiles, takes the chopping board, starts cutting onions while chatting happily.
SHe even said: “I have a special spice, put it in!”
This is active consent — even if you don't say “yes” verbally.
After cooking is finished, you eat together, your friend says:
“It’s so delicious, I’ll make it again tomorrow!”
But the next day she regrets it (the kitchen is a mess, or you don't call him anymore).
Then suddenly your friend accuses you of “forcing” you to cook together.
It doesn't make sense, because his actions and words clearly show agreement: he cuts, adds spices, enjoys it, even plans to cook together again.
Just like the LJW case (July 13, 2016):
LJW doesn't verbally ask "Do you want to have sex?" (like not asking "Do you want to cook together?").
But A responds with active reciprocal actions: laughing, extending a hand, accepting a hug, a kiss, holding the buttocks, a pleasant atmosphere.
A gives verbal consent: “Today is safe” (confirmation of menstrual cycle) — like “special seasoning, put it in!”
Post-sex: more kissing, blue blanket spread, casual chat (musical career, dogs, painting, dancing), “morning ^^” + meal plans — like “That was so good, let’s make it again tomorrow!”
Haters are very wrong if they say “no verbal questions = no consent”.
Even Consent can be non-verbal (a reciprocal action) and specific verbal (“today is safe”) — both are present in this case.
Because consent in modern law can be verbal OR non-verbal — as long as it is active, voluntary, clear, ongoing, and not coerced.
The LJW case had both, which is why the court of appeal (2018) deemed the relationship “to have occurred naturally by mutual consent.”
If haters say “there has to be an explicit verbal ‘yes’”, that’s not true — modern law already recognizes active non-verbal consent as a valid form of consent, as long as the evidence shows there was no resistance or duress.
The judge even said, "But it is also not possible to say that oppressive tactics were used." This wasn't just a sentence. It was an affirmation. The judge deliberately closed the gap for misinterpretation.
Confirming that there is no objective evidence to support the rape allegation. There is no evidence of LJW coercion. There was no intimidation. There was no evidence of physical or psychological pressure.
“Oppressive tactics” include all forms of coercion: physical violence, threats, psychological manipulation, power imbalance, or conditions that prevent free consent (intoxication, unconsciousness, freeze response with medical evidence).
3. CONSENT = PERMISSION TO ENTER A HOUSE?
Cultural Generalization: The argument that “many Korean men consider an invitation home as consent” is irrelevant without evidence that LJW had a reasonable belief in consent based on A’s actual actions — not merely on permission to enter the house.
The X duck account and Korean brunch blogger threads claim:
“Does allowing a man into the house automatically mean allowing sex?”
Answer: No. Just as entrusting someone with your wallet doesn’t mean they can take your money.
They also claim: “Many Korean men view entering a home, renting a DVD, or going to a motel as automatic consent.”
Weaknesses:
False Analogy — The wallet analogy is incorrect because sexual intercourse involves reciprocal interaction, not a one-sided act. Evidence shows A did not just “allow entry”; she actively participated:
Non-verbal consent: mutual hand-holding, returning hugs, grabbing buttocks, mutual kissing
Verbal consent: saying “today is safe” + confirming her menstrual cycle
Post-sex: continued kissing, relaxed 20-minute conversation (about dog, musical career, painting), “morning ^^” message
The court even stated:
“A never expressed refusal or resistance; the sexual intercourse occurred naturally with mutual consent” (lbox.kr 2017).
From the mens rea perspective: If A actively participated, how could LJW possibly know she was actually uncomfortable or didn’t agree?
Objectively, this entire chain of actions would reasonably create a reasonable belief in consent for Lee Jin-wook — that the act was mutual and consensual.
There is no basis to say he knew or should have known consent was absent → mens rea (criminal intent) not fulfilled.
However, the evidence that contradicts A is instead denied, distorted, or ignored, then shifted into emotional framing:
“patriarchy,” “misogyny,” “victim blaming,” “rigid law.”
➡️ The goal is clear: to divert attention from objective evidence to emotional narratives,
especially when their claims conflict with A’s own statements and the official investigation findings.
The duck account and brunch threads narrate:
It’s portrayed as if LJW entered A’s house, chatted briefly, checked the curtains, asked to use the bathroom, and then immediately committed sexual violence.
The facts are very different.
Important correction:
The claim that “permission to enter the house = consent” came from the first-instance judge, not the appellate judge. This was one of the considerations in the first court’s ruling (first paragraph):
https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/118868
DISTORTION OF FACTS:
The appellate court corrected the consent assessment by using a holistic timeline (totality of evidence):
A’s own confession that actually supported LJW’s credibility
Full timeline before, during, and after the incident
The appellate judge relied on the totality of evidence to meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard.
Yet specific facts were distorted and twisted as follows:
Still, it gets twisted and misrepresented as if the judge equated consent with permission to enter A’s house.
To be honest and objective, it is actually the first-instance judgment that was flawed and dangerous. The logic of “consent = permission to enter a house” creates a harmful precedent for the future—ordinary people could be criminalized based solely on evidence of a visit, while real victims may receive weaker protection.
In modern law, consent is an ongoing process that must be clear, freely given, specific, and assessed based on the overall context—not just a single moment when a door is opened.
Permission to enter a house is only the beginning of an interaction, not consent to sex. If that logic were accepted, the consequences would be serious:
High potential for abuse: people could twist “being allowed inside” into justification for sexual acts, harming real victims in the future.
The boundaries of consent would become blurred—as if everything that follows is automatically agreed to.
Most critically:
People who truly had no bad intentions—just stopping by, helping install curtains, or delivering a package—even in situations that are actually consensual, could still be accused of having malicious intent simply because they were “allowed inside.”
This could lead to widespread wrongful convictions or make false accusations easier to succeed, especially when driven by emotional motives or revenge.
Therefore, the first-instance decision using the logic “consent = permission to enter A’s house” was flawed and dangerous. Fortunately, the 2018 appellate decision overturned it by focusing on the totality of consent evidence (verbal, non-verbal, and post-sex behavior) ✅ rather than a single instance of entry ❌
The “bebek” account is exploiting a loophole from the first ruling to attack LJW, but in doing so, it is actually promoting a dangerous precedent that could harm real victims in the future.
So, the real issue in the legal dispute between A vs. LJW is not the case itself, nor the legal system or process—but how the “bebek” account distorts parts of the initial ruling into a “false legal principle,” even though it has already been overturned on appeal.
https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=118868
Another issue with the first-instance ruling is not only that it lacked a comprehensive analysis (reducing consent to “permission to enter the house”), but also that it relied too heavily on subjectivity.
The judge emphasized feelings such as “fear” and “shame,” even mentioning a “possibility of momentary fear”—which is speculative if not supported by objective evidence.
Feelings like fear or shame are indeed relevant, but in law they must be supported by concrete evidence, such as:
threatening messages, witnesses, psychological reports, medical records of trauma, or indications of coercion.
In this case, however, such evidence did not exist.
There was no PTSD diagnosis, no psychological report, no evidence of threats, and no witnesses who observed a state of shock.
A actually had the opportunity to obtain strong evidence (medical examination/forensic report) and a PTSD report—especially for claims of extreme violence
However, A’s statements regarding medical visits were inconsistent:
• claimed to have gone to the police hospital 👉 • then said she only made a phone call 👉 • then said staff told her to photograph bruises herself 👉 • then stated she only came for emergency contraception
If the purpose of going to the hospital was acknowledged as fear of pregnancy—not for a forensic exam or evidence preservation—then its evidentiary value for proving rape is weak.
This is because concern about pregnancy can also occur in consensual relationships. 👉 At this point, A’s own statements actually weaken her case. 👉 Moreover, there are numerous major inconsistencies and contradictions.
On the contrary, what emerges is:
➡️ active and reciprocal behavior before, during, and after the incident
➖ Non-verbal consent: reciprocal hand-holding, mutual hugging, touching of buttocks, and kissing. Verbal consent: stating “today is safe” (lbox.kr 2018). The court also emphasized that during the sexual encounter, “A never expressed refusal or resistance; rather, the sexual activity occurred by mutual agreement” (lbox.kr 2017). Post-sex: continued kissing, casual conversation (about a dog, musical career, paintings), and even sending a “morning ^^” message (lbox.kr 2018).
➖ From a mens rea perspective: if A actively participated, how could LJW have known that A was uncomfortable or did not consent? Objectively, this sequence of actions reasonably creates a belief in consent for Lee Jin-wook, meaning mens rea is not established here.
➖ The judge even added a key statement: “but it is also not possible to say that oppressive tactics were used” (lbox.kr 2018).
The term “oppressive tactics” means there is no evidence of coercion, intimidation, physical or psychological pressure, power imbalance, or conditions that would undermine free consent (such as intoxication, unconsciousness, fear, or a medically proven freeze response). It encompasses all forms of coercion, both physical and psychological—and none were proven in this case.
➖ The objective evidence above contradicts the claim of “fear and trauma” 👉 meaning the subjective narrative is not only weak, but directly conflicts with the evidence.
➡️ The objective evidence even points in the opposite direction of the “fear and trauma” narrative—suggesting possible manipulation:
➖ Bruises were assessed as self-inflicted (SNU forensic analysis)
➖ Blanket was washed → possible indication of destroying DNA evidence (Dispatch)
➖ Story changed 180°: from claims of “violence/beating” → to “no coercion”
➖ Admission of consensual relationship
Crucial contradictions and credibility issues further weaken the claim:
➖ A alleged severe violence (inner thigh, vulva, forced penetration),
➖ but no genital trauma was found in the areas mentioned 👉 meaning the submitted evidence contradicts her own account
➖ This aligns with the analysis that the injuries did not originate from external violence
➖ Polygraph results indicated deception
➖ Medical documents contained irregularities
➖ History of medical visits/treatment changed repeatedly
➖ No medical/forensic support for claims of violence
➖All of this makes A’s subjective narrative of “fear and shame” inconsistent and unsupported by evidence.
It would be extremely dangerous if the law were to simplify consent into merely “permission to enter a house” and rely solely on subjective claims such as “fear” and “shame” to convict someone—without objective supporting evidence (threatening messages, witnesses, psychological reports, medical findings, etc.).
Even under modern legal standards, subjective claims must be verified with concrete evidence.
Without this, rulings like this open a wide gap for untested allegations and risk harming real victims in the future under the flawed reasoning of “consent = permission to enter the house.”
The consequences:
➖ Innocent people could be punished and criminalized based solely on emotional claims of “fear and shame” without factual verification
➖ The standard of proof becomes blurred
➖ A dangerous legal precedent emerges, undermining the integrity of the justice system going forward
4. THE JUDGE AND LJW LABELED A AS A "SNAKE WOMAN" (GOLD DIGGER)
The term (Flower Snake / Snake Woman) did appear in public discussions — referring to a woman who seduces men for money ( gold digger)
However, the court's verdict was based on objective evidence (as explained in point 2 above), not on stereotypes alone.
The duck account thread and Korean brunch bloggers exaggerate this label to attack the legal system.
In reality, there is NOT A SINGLE SENTENCE in the appellate court verdict that labels A as a “snake woman/gold digger.”
On the contrary, the appellate judge cleared A of this label.
Here are the facts that the duck account and Korean brunch bloggers have distorted and twisted regarding the “snake woman” label:
“It doesn't seems like money was the motive.” (Dispatch, 21 July 2016)
Despite the facts being this clear and straightforward, duck acc on X continue to be distorted and twisted
5. IS IT TRUE THAT A WAS FORCED BY POLICE TO ADMIT THE SEX WAS CONSENSUAL?
No, that claim is false and illogical.
“A was interrogated by police together with her hired lawyer, but does it make sense that misleading information was inserted into her statement and that she was forced to confess during that time?”
“Because the entire investigation process from beginning to end was video-recorded, it can be sufficiently verified later through the video recording to determine who is telling the truth.”
(Source: https://www.newdaily.co.kr/site/data/html/2016/08/18/2016081800121.html)
FACTS:
(1) The interrogation was video-recorded, and police openly challenged it to be released
Police publicly stated:
“The recording will prove who is telling the truth.”
This was not a bluff—it was a direct legal challenge.
If police dared to offer the recording, it means:
They were ready for it to be played in court
They invited and challenged A and her lawyer to file a formal objection through the judge to prove the “forced confession” claim
But in reality:
A and her lawyers never took up the challenge
They never requested the recording be played in court
If she was truly forced, this would have been their main weapon in court — police coercion = serious procedural violation
If proven, A’s confession would be invalid, and the false accusation charge could collapse
Fact: A’s lawyers never raised this claim in any trial (including the 2018 appeal).
Logic: No lawyer would miss such a “magic card” if coercion really happened.
A’s team never asked for the recording in court.
Logical conclusion:
If the recording supported A → they would have used it in defense.
Since they didn’t → the content likely damaged A.
(2) A was accompanied by her lawyer during the interrogation
The lawyer’s presence was to prevent intimidation or coercion.
If police truly: threatened, directed answers, or forced confession — the lawyer was obligated to stop the interrogation or report it immediately.
Fact: No report, no objection, no evidence of violation was ever filed by A or her legal team.
This means the “forced confession” claim was never taken seriously even by A’s own lawyers.
(3) Fatal contradiction: A vs her own lawyer
A (in interview with TheFact):
“I never confessed; it was forced by police.”
A’s lawyer (in the same interview):
“It is already known that A confessed to police, so the strategy is now to request leniency.”
Meaning: The lawyer acknowledged the confession was real and valid, and shifted directly to seeking leniency — not to invalidate the confession.
If it was truly coerced, the lawyer would never say that — especially in the same interview.
They would at minimum say: “We will seek to nullify the confession.”
Strategy of “requesting leniency” = the case had already collapsed (A’s lie exposed).
A’s original lawyer withdrew due to loss of trust.
New lawyer reviewed the files and saw:
Official consensual confession
Objective evidence reinforcing it
Realistic choice: not denial, but plea for leniency. This is legal code for: client’s position is very weak — her lie is exposed.
The “forced confession” claim appeared only in media, not in court.
In court: silent
In media interviews: claims coercion
Legal standard: Coercion claims must be tested in court, not in media.
Simple logic:
If “forced confession” was true → it should have been brought to the judge.
Since it only appeared in media → it was media play to sway public opinion, not legal fact.
(4) The coercion claim contradicts objective evidence
The “no force” confession aligns perfectly with:
Non-verbal consent (active mutual participation)
Verbal consent (“today is safe”)
Romantic post-sex conversation
Friendly pre- and post-incident interactions
Self-inflicted bruises supported by forensic experts
Contradictions in physical evidence vs A’s story (no genital trauma despite forced penetration claim, forensic-unstandard bruise photos, fake medical certificate, lies about treatment, etc.)
Appellate judge ruled: no “oppressive tactics / coercive tactics” used = no physical or psychological pressure was applied by LJW to remove A’s free will.
More logical: The feeling of “pressure” came from her lie starting to unravel — not from police intimidation.
This is not a system failure — it is a story that collapsed under its own evidence and logic.
6. IS LJW INNOCENT ONLY BECAUSE OF KOREA’S RIGID, PATRIARCHAL, MISOGYNISTIC LAW — WHILE "PLAYING VICTIM"?
The duck account narrative claims LJW escaped rape charges because Korean law is rigid, misogynistic, and patriarchal, and is just “playing victim.”
Yes, 2016 Korean law was criticized as rigid
Rape definition was narrow: required violence/threats making resistance difficult. Cases without clear physical violence/threats were hard to prove. This systemic criticism is valid.
But rigidity ≠ A’s accusation is automatically true
Rigidity does not mean:
Consent is ignored
Every victim claim must be accepted without verification
No consent exists in every case
The duck account thread ignores that A’s accusation fails even modern consent standards — because consent was proven + A admitted no force + bruises were self-inflicted (as explained in previous points).
If LJW really benefited from a “rigid law” that protects men or just "playing victim", why bother filing a false accusation suit?
He was fully cleared on August 3, 2016.
Logically:
If he just wanted to intimidate or silence A, he could drop the false accusation charge after being cleared.
He could hiatus briefly, then return to his career without extra burden.
But LJW did the opposite:
Continued the false accusation trial (did not withdraw)
Let it drag on until the 2018 verdict
Risked his name being dragged in media/public for over 2 years
Real reason LJW filed:
To prove openly that A’s accusation was not just “unproven due to rigid law” — but deliberately false and manipulative.
To counter the massive stigma at the time:
“Perpetrators escape because "rigid law" " law requires violence”
“Male celebrities always get away due to misogyny/patriarchy/rigid law”
This was high-risk, not a safe strategy.
Goal: clear his name and fight the “male celebrities always escape cancel culture” narrative.
Supporting facts: The narrative that LJW escaped due to a misogynistic Korean system doesn’t match procedural reality
➖Police hospital immediately offered visum (Thefact ) → system focused on specific evidence (injuries, DNA, genital trauma, recovery) relevant to A’s violence claim — without moral judgment. This shows victim priority (“believe the victim”), not moral judging or victim blaming.
➖Police immediately accepted A’s report (filed July 14, recalled for further statement July 15)
➖A was interrogated with her lawyer present + entire process video-recorded to prevent intimidation/procedural flaws
➖LJW interrogated 11 hours + immediately placed under travel ban
➖Police visum’d LJW while A avoided it
➖Police checked A’s fertility period + granted her polygraph request
➖Judges twice rejected detaining A (no risk of evidence tampering), while LJW got travel ban right away
➖This shows the procedure focused on objective evidence collection — not protecting male perpetrators, nor judges being moralistic, misogynistic, or patriarchal.
Conclusion:
LJW was cleared not because of a “rigid, patriarchal, misogynistic” system that automatically favors men.
He was cleared because objective evidence (including A’s own admissions and contradictions) proved mutual consent — even under modern standards.
The system gave A every procedural protection and opportunity to prove her claim — she avoided or contradicted them herself.
Filing the false accusation suit was LJW’s deliberate choice to prove innocence beyond “lack of proof due to rigid law” — at great personal risk
It is also true that there are rape cases that occur without physical violence. However, that does not automatically apply to every case. Because in the case of A vs LJW:
From her initial report on July 14, 2016, A did not simply claim “there was no consent.”
She claimed: no consent + being punched, spat on, forcibly subdued, running to the kitchen, ankles grabbed and legs lifted, forced penetration, and repeated punching to the genital area, "I refused strongly".
She even presented evidence to the public: bruise photos and a claim that her underwear was stretched and damaged.
This means her original narrative was extreme physical violence + active resistance.
If that was the case, forensic evidence becomes highly relevant — because her claim was based on physical violence.
However, when A’s claim was contradicted by her own later admission, along with inconsistencies and contradictions from A herself, plus emerging evidence such as:
➖Change of claim from extreme violence to “no force at all”
➖No genital trauma despite her claim
➖Bruises assessed as self-inflicted
➖Admission that the intercourse occurred with mutual consent
➖Mutual actions and the “today is safe” conversation
➖Inconsistent medical visit stories
➖Avoidance of visum and washing of potential evidence
The duck account and Korean brunch bloggers suddenly shifted the narrative to:
“Freeze response,” “Many cases happen without physical violence,” and “The law is too rigid.”
This is classic moving the goalposts after being cornered by their own lies and contradictions. This was not their original narrative.
If the duck account’s narrative shifts to “Freeze response” and “Many cases happen without physical violence,” does this indirectly admit that A’s bruises were self-inflicted and acknowledge that there was indeed no violence, as found by the court ???
If from the very beginning A’s claim had been “there was no violence, but there was no consent,” then the debate about rigid law might be relevant.
But when the narrative changed from:
“Brutal violence + active resistance” → “It’s possible without physical violence, the victim froze / was scared”
Then a logical question naturally arises:
What were the bruise photos meant to prove?
What narrative was the damaged underwear supposed to support?
If violence is now said to be unnecessary, then where did the bruises come from?
This is not “looking for loopholes.” This is questioning consistency.
And in criminal law, consistency between the narrative and the evidence is key.
Then the duck account counters with the following narrative:
“Determining rape cases using forensic methods is outdated, because there are cases without violence.”
This statement is wrong and dangerous, especially when it comes to claims of sexual violence.
Yes, people criticize the narrow legal definition ✅
But that does not mean we should reject scientific evidence such as forensics ❌
Forensics is not an “outdated method.” Forensics is an objective verification tool in modern law. Equating criticism of the legal definition with rejecting forensics is a strawman fallacy.
In A’s case:
A claimed: repeated punching to the vulva, forced penetration, and active resistance.
That is a concrete claim of physical violence.
When a claim is based on physical violence, forensics becomes highly relevant to verify:
Whether genital trauma exists or not
Whether defensive wounds exist or not
Whether the bruise pattern is consistent or not
The absence of genital trauma in a claim of extreme violence is not an issue of “rigid law.” It is a medical anomaly that is perfectly reasonable to question.
It’s like someone claiming they were threatened with a knife until their hand bled, but when examined, there is not a single scratch on their hand. Logically, of course people will question it. This is not about saying “a victim must have injuries.” This is a perfectly reasonable medical and logical question that even ordinary people would ask about the credibility of the story.
Furthermore, in criminal law, every piece of evidence must be verified — including A’s bruises. Especially in this case, where there are major inconsistencies: from “extreme violence” → “no force at all.”
Because bruises are not automatic proof of sexual violence. Bruises can appear from:
Hitting objects, falling, light pressure, friction, traditional practices like kerokan, or even hickeys (love bites).
This is exactly why forensics is needed — to distinguish:
Trauma caused by external violence ➖ Self-inflicted injuries ➖ Other causes
Study here how police uncover false allegations through inconsistencies in injuries using forensic analysis:
➖https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/false-allegations-of-adult-crimes
➖https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_rape_hoax
This article explains how investigators identify false allegations by examining inconsistencies between reported injuries, forensic evidence, and the overall narrative.
Verifying evidence does not mean disbelieving the victim or making it difficult for them. Verification is a standard legal requirement, even in modern law.
If the duck account pushes the narrative that “forensics is irrelevant or outdated for sexual violence cases,” then how do we prove cases where the victim is unconscious? We would need tests for alcohol or drugs.
How do we identify unknown perpetrators or solve cases without witnesses? We would need DNA identification.
For child victims, grooming victims, or victims who don’t understand the concept of consent — we would need biological and digital evidence.
How do we deliver justice for deceased victims? Only forensics can speak for them.
The answer remains: forensics.
Study this case here: BBC article on the Mary McLaughlin case https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-56692995
It shows how the case of Mary McLaughlin, a rape and murder victim, only found justice decades later through advances in forensic technology.
New methods allowed investigators to analyze DNA from small, previously overlooked items—such as a cigarette butt—that were once considered insignificant.
This breakthrough ultimately led to the identification and conviction of the perpetrator after many years.
Forensics will always be relevant. Even in cases without physical injuries, forensics remains important.
If the world’s legal standards followed the duck account’s narrative that “forensics is irrelevant or outdated for sexual violence cases,” the consequences would actually be far more dangerous:
❌ People could be convicted based solely on subjective accusations.
❌ DNA would not need to be verified.
❌ There would be no need to check whether the sex was previously consensual.
❌ There would be no need to check for drugs or intoxication.
Example: A accuses B of rape and brings “white fluid” as “semen” → B is immediately imprisoned without DNA testing, without checking if the sex was previously consensual, without checking for drugs, etc.
In reality, that fluid could be from previous consensual sex, or it might not even be semen at all (it could be lotion or something else), or A could be lying completely.
Without forensics, people could be sent to prison based only on subjective accusations and easily manipulated or ambiguous evidence.
Even worse:
Imagine if a victim is found dead, heavily drugged, intoxicated, or doesn’t know the perpetrator.
If forensics is considered “outdated” and unimportant, the police would only have a report saying “a stranger raped her.”
Without DNA, fingerprints, bodily fluids, drug traces, or other forensic evidence — the perpetrator would almost certainly never be identified. The case would likely be closed due to “lack of leads.”
The ultimate result of the narrative “forensics is irrelevant/outdated” is that real victims would be the ones most harmed — perpetrators go free, justice fails, and victims’ families lose all hope.
Ironically, when the government tried to remove subsidies for forensic examinations such as visum, the public immediately protested because they realized how important forensic examinations are in helping victims prove sexual violence in court. A visum provides victims with objective evidence that can strengthen their case.
On the other hand, there are social media accounts with large followings that openly claim forensic procedures are “outdated/irrelevant” when discussing sensitive cases like sexual violence. This logic is hard to understand. If the idea of removing forensic subsidies was considered important enough to be publicly protested, how can the role of forensics be dismissed at the same time when evaluating a case (LJW vs A)?
Portraying forensics as “outdated/irrelevant” risks misleading the public’s understanding of how sexual violence cases are actually proven.
This is a clear double standard. If the duck account truly cares about sexual violence victims, they should recognize that visum and forensic examinations are vital tools to help victims.
Forensics is not the enemy of victims. On the contrary, forensics helps victims — by documenting injuries, identifying DNA, detecting drugs, and strengthening evidence in court. Without such objective evidence, proving a case becomes much more difficult.
The problem is that the duck account’s narrative of “forensics is outdated” is not read only in the context of one case. Other people — including real victims seeking information or justice — might absorb the misleading message that visum or medical examinations are unimportant, or even get the impression that “forensics burdens victims,” when in fact forensics is a tool for protecting victims (as regulated in the victim protection law) and protecting against false accusations.
So, who is this duck account actually defending?
Real victims seeking justice? Or defending perpetrators of false accusations whose lies have already been exposed by objective procedures like forensics?
Or perhaps the duck account feels ““Feeling justified and not feeling guilty.” simply because their thread went viral and received massive exposure and support on social media?
Furthermore, forensics is not just about seeing “how severe the injuries are.”
Modern forensics includes:
DNA → Bodily fluids → Wound patterns → Toxicology → Chronological consistency → Even digital evidence.
In cases with claims of physical violence like A’s, forensics can:
Identify defensive wounds
Detect genital trauma
Assess bruise patterns (whether consistent or not)
Match injuries to the claimed sequence of events
Verify the authenticity of evidence
Criticizing the legal definition is acceptable. But calling forensics “outdated” in rape cases is a serious mistake.
In A’s case, because her claim from the beginning was based on extreme physical violence, forensics is not merely relevant — it is crucial. Rejecting the relevance of forensics actually weakens the foundation of justice itself.
Because even in cases without physical injuries, forensics often becomes the only objective evidence available.
7. WHAT A'S MOTIF ???
The motive appears to be emotional disappointment—feeling hurt, humiliated, and used as a “one-night stand.” This feeling arose after the incident, when Lee Jin-wook did not contact her the next day.
Importantly, this is not speculation by the judge, not an assumption, and not victim-blaming. It comes directly from A’s own statement recorded in the court judgment (footnote no.18, lbox.kr 2018).
However, the “bebek” account on X dismisses this by claiming:
“It’s not believable that someone would falsely accuse rape just because of emotional disappointment.”
Yet a recurring pattern appears: whenever A’s own statements are presented as evidence, they are distorted or dismissed, as if they never existed, were forced by police, or were legally invalid.
A’s own statement about the situation (court record)
According to the court record (lbox.kr/2018노2323, footnote 18), A stated:
“D (Lee Jin-wook) laid me down on the bed, and I gave myself to him, and we had sexual intercourse. However, after D left, the next day he did not apologize or show any concern. I thought at least there would be some message through the person who introduced us, but that did not happen. Because of that, I felt that the person had deliberately sent D to me and that I had been treated merely as a one-night toy, which made me feel extremely humiliated. From that day on, I also worried about pregnancy, so I went to the hospital.”
Why A’s confession about her motive is important:
A admits that sexual intercourse occurred.
In her confession, A stated that she “surrendered herself” to D and that “we had sexual intercourse.” This statement shows that during the incident itself, there was no mention of refusal, force, threat, or violence — so legally, it points to sexual intercourse that took place with consent. In her own words, A stated that she consciously and voluntarily “surrendered herself” to have intercourse.
There is no explicit claim of force, threats, refusal during the act, violence, ignored refusal, inability to consent, identity deception, or exploitative power relationship.
Even the judge emphasized that A never expressed refusal or resistance; instead, the sexual intercourse occurred naturally with mutual consent (lbox.kr 2017).
There is no explicit claim of: force, threats, refusal during the incident, violence, ignored refusal, inability to give consent, identity deception, or exploitative power imbalance.
A’s own language shows reciprocal interaction. The phrase A used was:
“We had sexual intercourse” → the word “we” indicates mutual action (not “I refused/didn’t want,” “he forced me,” or “I was forced”).
This statement directly contradicts her original accusation, which claimed:
forced penetration
repeated physical assault to the genital area
pulling at underwear
resisting and running to the kitchen
Point 2 — Emotional Motive Appearing After the Encounter
This shift in framing was not something the judges invented; it comes directly from A’s own statement.
The main motive that appears from her words is emotional disappointment—feeling hurt and humiliated because she believed she had been treated as a “one-night stand,” not because she was forced sexually.
Her emotional reaction clearly appears after Lee Jin-wook left and did not show any attention the next day. The parts of her statement that reveal this include:
➖“After D left, the next day he did not apologize or show any concern.”
➖“I thought there would at least be a message through the person who introduced us.”
➖“I felt that the person had deliberately sent D to me and that I was treated merely as a one-night toy.”
➖“That made me feel extremely humiliated.”
These statements show deep emotional disappointment—a sense of being used, unmet expectations for further contact, and the feeling of being emotionally or sexually taken advantage of without commitment.
Such feelings are valid and can be very painful on a personal level. However, in criminal law, feeling humiliated after a consensual sexual encounter—for example because the other person did not contact you again, did not respond afterward, or treated the encounter as a one-night stand—does not constitute the legal elements of sexual assault.
In other words, the phrase “I was treated like a one-night toy” reflects A’s emotional interpretation after Lee Jin-wook left, not a description that consent was absent at the time the sexual encounter occurred.
Point 3 — What did the phrase actually mean?
So what does the statement “I felt treated like a one-night toy” actually mean?
In simple human terms, it reflects an expectation for attention or a continuing relationship, followed by hurt and disappointment when that expectation was not met. It describes an emotional reaction, not a criminal offense. Feelings can change after an encounter, but consent that was given at the time does not automatically disappear later.
There is also no criminal law that requires “aftercare” or continued contact after a consensual sexual relationship. If not contacting someone again or not visiting again were treated as a crime, then a large number of ordinary ghosting situations would have to be criminalized, which is clearly not how criminal law works.
➖Even more dangerous:
If “the perpetrator didn’t come back” is used as a benchmark for rape, the logic becomes reversed. In many real cases, perpetrators actually stay close, return repeatedly, and maintain a relationship with the victim—which can trap the victim psychologically, creating fear and making it harder to report (for example, in cases where the perpetrator is a biological father).
In such situations, the perpetrator clearly does not “disappear” or ghost, yet the crime still occurs.
So whether someone comes back or not is not a valid indicator of sexual violence.
What matters is what happened during the incident itself—whether there was coercion or lack of consent, not what happens afterward
The emotional focus: feeling ignored, not fear
The key phrases used by A emphasize feeling ignored rather than fear:
➖“He did not apologize.”
➖“He did not show any concern.”
➖“I thought there would at least be a message.”
➖“I felt like I was being played.”
➖“It was very humiliating.”
These statements show that A expected emotional follow-up or attention after the sexual encounter, and her disappointment arose when those expectations were not fulfilled. This reflects a personal emotional motive, not the legal elements required to establish rape.
The “Good morning ^^” message
The friendly message sent the next morning actually reinforces this emotional explanation.
The message—“Good morning ^^” along with the restaurant address—suggests an attempt to maintain or continue communication, rather than behavior typical of someone processing a traumatic assault.
This aligns with her own words: “I thought there would be some message.”
In other words, A still seemed to be hoping for a response from Lee Jin-wook, not reacting to a violent incident.
Actions that suggest a narrative built afterward
Several actions that followed the incident were also viewed as suspicious during the investigation:
➖reporting false facts and allegedly creating self-inflicted bruises
➖distributing photos of those bruises to the media while the investigation was still ongoing
➖washing the bedsheets despite knowing they could be important evidence (reported by Dispatch)
➖avoiding a forensic medical examination
➖giving inconsistent statements about medical treatment
➖Her explanations about medical care changed repeatedly:
She claimed she received treatment and obtained medical documentation. 👉 Later she said she only called the police hospital. 👉 Then she claimed hospital staff told her to photograph bruises herself at home. 👉 Finally she said she only went to obtain emergency contraception.
Each version appeared after the previous one could not be verified, creating a pattern of stacking explanations after earlier claims collapsed.
“Fear of pregnancy” does not prove rape
A also stated that she went to the hospital because she feared pregnancy. However, fear of pregnancy is not evidence of rape, because it is also common after consensual sex without contraception.
There are also contradictions in this claim:
A herself said “today is safe.”
Police verification showed she was not in her fertile period, consistent with Lee Jin-wook’s statement.
Meanwhile, in a case alleging violent rape, no medical evidence appeared:
❌ no forensic examination
❌ no trauma counseling records
Despite A claiming she had been “treated” at a hospital, there were no verifiable medical findings. This strengthens the conclusion that the medical narrative may have been adjusted later to cover earlier contradictions.
Overall, the repeated changes in her medical story—
treatment → phone call → told to photograph bruises → emergency contraception—
suggest a pattern where each new explanation appeared only after the previous claim could not be confirmed.
➖A’s admission about her emotional motive is consistent with the evidence that emerged regarding the timeline of the entire incident, which points to a consensual encounter that was later regretted.
That regret then developed into a feeling of being “played” or used, which hurt her sense of dignity and ultimately triggered the false rape accusation. Here are the details:
➖Evidence consistent with a consensual interaction
A’s statement and later changes in her claims are also consistent with other evidence suggesting consensual interaction, such as:
Non-verbal consent:
reciprocating by reaching out her hand ➖ mutual hugging
touching each other’s hips ➖ kissing together
Verbal consent :
saying “Today is safe” while confirming her menstrual cycle
The court also confirmed that A never expressed refusal or resistance, and that the sexual encounter occurred naturally through mutual agreement (lbox.kr 2017).
After the sexual encounter:
they kissed again
had relaxed conversations (about dogs, musical careers, paintings)
A even sent a “Good morning ^^” message afterward.
Mens rea:
how could Lee Jin-wook know she was unwilling?
From the perspective of mens rea (criminal intent), if A actively participated in the interaction, an important question arises:
How could Lee Jin-wook have known that A was actually uncomfortable or unwilling?
Objectively, the sequence of actions described above would reasonably create a reasonable belief in consent for Lee Jin-wook—that the sexual encounter occurred mutually.
Court finding on coercion
The court also stated:
“But it is also not possible to say that oppressive tactics were used.”
In legal context, “oppressive tactics” refers to forms of coercion such as:
physical force, intimidation, psychological pressure, abuse of power imbalance, conditions preventing free consent (such as intoxication, unconsciousness, fear, or medically verified freeze response).None of these elements were proven in this case.
Point 4 — Simple analogies to explain the legal logic
Simple Analogy:
Imagine this:
Your friend B messages you:
“I’m hanging out with X right now, wanna join?”
You reply: “Okay.”
You chat, laugh together, having a good time.
You casually say:
“I’m scared to go home alone late at night.”
B says:
“X can take you home.”
You: “Sure.”
You give X your address. X drops you off at home. You allow X to come inside the house. Inside, you chat for a while. Then consensual sex happens — no force, no coercion, and nothing that invalidates consent.
The next day… X doesn’t message you again.
Then you start thinking and feel set up:
“Maybe from the beginning they planned to trap me and use me as a one-night toy.”
But that’s not how the law works.
Not messaging or coming back is just inconsiderate / not gentlemanly.
That feeling is completely human.
But it does not mean you were deliberately set up from the start.
That’s called disappointment, not rape.
Conclusion:
✔️ Socially: X can look rude or not gentlemanly.
❌ Legally: It is not proof of premeditation.
❌ Criminally: It does not invalidate the consent that already existed.
❌ It does not automatically mean “planned from the beginning.”
Another Analogy:
You’re invited to watch a movie.
The trailer looks interesting, so you agree to go.
During the movie, you watch until the end without any objection.
After it’s over, the person who invited you doesn’t message you again.
You feel disappointed and think you were just a “movie buddy.”
👉 Feeling disappointed is normal.
👉 But that does not mean you were forced to watch the movie or tricked into going from the beginning.
More detail, read here → SELENGKAPNYA
Komentar
Posting Komentar