[Quasi-rape/Quasi-indecent Assault by Force] Both Suspects Defended Successfully with Not Referred to Prosecution at the Police Stage

For the crime of quasi-rape to be established, the complainant must have been in a state of unconsciousness or inability to resist at the time of the act. In addition, it must be established that the suspect had the requisite intent, namely, recognizing and exploiting that state.

In cases involving heavy intoxication, suspicion can easily be established based solely on the complainant's statement that she does not remember. Furthermore, the investigative agency had already proceeded to compulsory investigative measures, making the defense considerably more difficult.

LEAP reconstructed the entire case and established a two-track strategy to prove both that the complainant was not in a state of inability to resist and that, even if she had been, the clients had no way of recognizing that state.

Immediately after taking on the case, LEAP reexamined the case from scratch based on our accumulated experience in handling sex crime cases and our expertise in analyzing factual circumstances.

Rather than simply rebutting the complainant's statement that she did not remember the situation at the time, LEAP established a multilayered defense strategy that separately contested (1) whether the complainant had actually been in a state of unconsciousness or inability to resist, and (2) whether the clients had the intent to recognize and exploit such a state.

① We reconstructed the circumstances before and after the incident in chronological order to establish the complainant's decision-making capacity

LEAP closely cross-analyzed the parties' statements and the objective circumstances before and after the incident, reconstructing in chronological order the entire process from when the complainant first met the clients to when she left the accommodation.

Based on this, we actively demonstrated that it was difficult to conclude that the complainant had been in a state of inability to resist, meaning a state in which psychological or physical resistance was impossible or significantly difficult.

② We presented legal principles distinguishing memory loss from unconsciousness or inability to resist

LEAP made a key pillar of the defense the case law principle that a person cannot immediately be found to have been in a state of unconsciousness or inability to resist merely because she does not remember some of what happened while intoxicated.

Applying this principle to the specific facts, LEAP persuasively argued that a mere lack of memory should not be sufficient to establish a state of unconsciousness or inability to resist, by pointing to the amount of alcohol the complainant consumed after joining the table, the fact that she moved to another location on her own, the way she continued to express her intentions in conversation, her control over her own body, and the circumstances in which she expressed her intention to go home.

③ We identified internal contradictions in the complainant's statement and inconsistencies with objective circumstances

As a result of analyzing the circumstances before and after the incident and the complainant's specific conduct, LEAP identified facts that were difficult to reconcile with the complainant's statement, and carefully analyzed contradictions in the structure of her statement, such as the fact that she claimed not to remember the overall situation at the time while describing certain scenes of the alleged harm in specific detail.

Through this, we specifically demonstrated that the complainant's statement alone was insufficient to establish that she had been in a state of unconsciousness or inability to resist at the time.

④ We separately demonstrated that the clients lacked the intent required for quasi-rape

For the crime of quasi-rape to be established, it must be shown not only that the complainant was actually in a state of unconsciousness or inability to resist, but also that the clients recognized that state and had the intent to exploit it in engaging in sexual intercourse.

LEAP analyzed, separately, the complainant's outwardly observable words and conduct at the time and the circumstances that the clients could have perceived.

LEAP emphasized that even if the complainant's normal judgment had been somewhat impaired by alcohol, if that impairment was not clearly apparent externally, the clients could not be found to have had the intent to recognize and exploit it.

In this way, LEAP independently demonstrated both that the complainant was not in a state of inability to resist and that the clients lacked the intent to exploit such a state, blocking the possibility of establishing the charge of quasi-rape from two directions.

⑤ LEAP strategically prepared the clients from the earliest stage of preparing for the police interview, carefully organizing the circumstances of the case.

We assisted the clients, who were undergoing criminal investigation for the first time, to avoid giving unclear statements due to nervousness or anxiety, or accepting premises embedded in the investigators' questions and thereby giving answers that did not match the facts. In particular, we prepared them to clearly distinguish, in their statements, between facts they had directly experienced and mere speculation, and between what they actually remembered and their after-the-fact evaluations.

Even in the unfavorable circumstances where compulsory investigative measures were underway, we helped the clients remain steady and consistently explain the circumstances of the case, and emphasized that their statements were consistent with their movements at the time and the objective circumstances before and after the incident.

In this way, LEAP separately and carefully analyzed the complainant's condition, the credibility of her statement, the clients' intent, and their responses during questioning, and defended the clients by systematically presenting the legal principles and facts relevant to each issue.