Whether a court ruling that acquitted a perpetrator on the ground that there was not enough force to neutralize a sexual assault victim's resistance was appropriate will be reviewed by the Constitutional Court. The Court also plans to examine a judicial constitutional complaint concerning the installation of wheelchair boarding equipment that persons with physical disabilities filed against bus companies.

On the 9th, the Constitutional Court referred to the full bench a judicial constitutional complaint filed by Law Firm Jihyang and civic groups, who argued that "even though the most important criterion for recognizing the crime of rape is whether the victim consented to the sexual act, a court ruling that acquitted under the ‘narrowest interpretation’ violated the right of the victim to sexual self-determination".

The complainant, A, is a sexual assault victim. The perpetrator, B, was brought to trial on a charge of quasi-rape even though A expressed refusal multiple times, but was acquitted at both first and second instance, and the judgment became final this March when the prosecutor declined to appeal. The court said, "It was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was violence or intimidation sufficient to make resistance by the victim markedly difficult".

[Flat] Even after shouting “Stop” 75 times, sexual violence acquittal…judicial constitutional complaint over rape law that asks about ‘victim resistance’

[Flat] The current ‘rape’ offense asks how desperately the victim fought ‘to avoid being raped’

What A challenges is that the court decided the case under the ‘narrowest interpretation,’ which recognizes rape based on whether ‘the victim could resist.’ In September 2023, the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, scrapped the narrowest-interpretation approach for forcible molestation for the first time in 40 years, but it has maintained precedents applying that approach in rape cases.

That day, the Constitutional Court also sent to the full bench a judicial constitutional complaint challenging a court ruling in a lawsuit brought by persons with physical disabilities seeking protection of mobility rights, which held that ‘it suffices to provide wheelchair boarding equipment only on routes with a high likelihood of actual use.’

The complainant, C, sued, asserting that bus companies not providing wheelchair boarding equipment constitutes discrimination under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities. The first and second instances and the Supreme Court all recognized this as discrimination. However, the Supreme Court determined that, given the business circumstances of the two companies sued, it could not order immediate installation on all routes. It reversed and remanded with instructions to redefine the installation scope to routes on which the plaintiffs were likely to board.

On remand, the court ordered installation only on seven routes connecting Seoul, where C works, and the residence of the parents of C, among others. C appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case without a hearing, finalizing the judgment.

C then filed a judicial constitutional complaint, arguing that "the court violated the right to mobility and the right to equality by limiting the scope of wheelchair boarding equipment only to routes between workplace and family residence". C also asserted that, if this ruling stands, a new lawsuit would be required each time the residence or workplace changes, which infringes the right to file suit.

Including the two cases referred that day, the number of judicial constitutional complaints in formal review by the Constitutional Court has increased to eight. Since the system took effect in March, 877 such complaints have been filed through that day, of which 736 (84%) were dismissed at the preliminary screening stage.