No-Prosecution, No-Suspicion Case Involving Rape Resulting in Injury

After sharing drinks with the complainant, the client remained in the same space as the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the client had engaged in forcible sexual acts against the complainant’s will and that the complainant had sustained injuries requiring medical treatment in the process.

A charge of rape resulting in injury is not established merely because there was sexual contact or evidence of injury. In the actual assessment, the authorities examine collectively whether the complainant’s statements are specific and consistent, whether they accord with the circumstances immediately following the incident, whether the injuries can reasonably be deemed to have resulted from the incident, and what the submitted test results establish.

From the early stages of the investigation, it was necessary in this case to distinguish and examine the significance of the complainant’s statements, video evidence such as CCTV footage, the medical certificate of injury, photographs of the body, and the ACP test results. Accordingly, it was important to organize separately what each item of evidence actually established and what it failed to establish.

01
Whether the complainant’s statements were sufficient to establish the charge of rape resulting in injury
02
Whether the forcible circumstances alleged by the complainant were naturally consistent with the surrounding circumstances
03
The relevance of the injuries to the alleged offense
04
The scope of proof provided by the ACP test results

MEGA X first reorganized the case around the credibility of the complainant’s statements. We examined whether the circumstances surrounding the sexual intercourse alleged by the complainant were realistically possible under the circumstances at the time, whether the statements were natural in light of the chronological sequence of events, and whether there were any aspects inconsistent with other evidence.

Next, we reviewed video evidence, including CCTV footage, and reconstructed the sequence of events immediately after the incident. We analyzed whether the complainant’s movements, conversations, and return home after the alleged conduct were consistent with the allegations, and reflected in the written submission and interview materials the circumstances that made it difficult to connect those events with the forcible circumstances alleged by the complainant.

We also reviewed the medical certificate of injury and photographs of the body and organized the grounds showing that it was difficult to conclusively determine that the injuries had resulted from this incident. In particular, we presented the possibility that similar physical marks could arise from circumstances associated with the complainant’s occupation or activities, and contested whether the injury evidence directly supported the charge of rape resulting in injury.

With respect to the ACP test results, we separately clarified their significance. We explained that the test results alone could not establish the occurrence of sexual intercourse or the presence of coercion, and that they did not prove the essential elements required to establish the charge of rape resulting in injury.

Non-Prosecution