File photo unrelated to the article [Yonhap]
File photo unrelated to the article [Yonhap]

A court has ruled that putting an arm around a female colleague's shoulder at a company drinking party does not constitute sexual misconduct when all attendees were doing the same and there was no bodily contact of a sexual nature.

The Cheongju District Court's Criminal Appeals Division 3, presided over by Chief Judge Kang Seong-hun, upheld a lower court's not-guilty verdict Monday for a defendant identified only as A, who was indicted on charges of workplace sexual misconduct under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Violence Crimes.

A, an executive at a company in Jincheon, North Chungcheong Province, was indicted on charges of coercing a fellow employee, identified as B, a manager in her 30s, into a "love shot" — a drinking ritual in which two people interlock arms and drink simultaneously — and putting his arm around her shoulder at a noraebang welcome party on Dec. 8, 2022, at around 10 p.m.

Prosecutors brought the case to trial, arguing that the power dynamic between a superior and a subordinate, combined with a workplace gathering atmosphere in which refusing physical contact was difficult, constituted coercive misconduct.

The first-instance court found that A had not pressed against B or touched any sensitive area of her body, and therefore the arm-over-shoulder gesture could not be considered misconduct. On the love shot, the court also found B's account unreliable, noting that while her complaint stated A had "suddenly grabbed her arm," she told police during the investigation that she had been the one to grab his arm first.

The appeals court upheld the acquittal, saying "all attendees at the time had their arms around each other's shoulders, and the other employees did not perceive this as sexual or coercive behavior."

On the love shot allegation, the court added that "even taking B's account at face value, the entirety of the defendant's conduct was extending his arm, saying 'love shot,' and looking at B." It said it was "difficult to conclude that the defendant exercised unlawful coercion to carry out the love shot, or that he had any such intent, based solely on the parties' workplace positions and their prior relationship."


husn7@heraldcorp.com