DNA Found on Damaged Pants: Why Supreme Court Rejected Rape Evidence

The Supreme Court has overturned a lower court's guilty verdict in a rape case, which had been based on DNA evidence submitted approximately two and a half years after the alleged incident.

The court ruled that the probative value of DNA evidence must be strictly scrutinized, and in this case, it was not sufficiently proven that there was no possibility of the evidence being tampered with or damaged.

The First Division of the Supreme Court (Justice Cheon Dae-yeop presiding) recently quashed the appellate court's guilty verdict against the defendant, identified as A, and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court.

A was indicted on charges of raping B in his vehicle in August 2021.

The first trial court acquitted A, stating, "It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed rape by using violence to such an extent that it made the victim's resistance significantly difficult."

The verdict was reversed during the second trial after a DNA analysis was conducted on the pants the victim was wearing at the time.

The appellate court had accepted the evidence because the defendant's DNA was detected, and it concluded that the damage to the pants supported the credibility of the victim's statement that the damage occurred while she was defending herself.

However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, citing concerns over the probative value of the DNA evidence.

The pants in question were submitted to investigative authorities in January 2024, more than two years after the incident. The Supreme Court noted that there was no investigation or lower court deliberation regarding whether the pants had been tampered with or damaged while in the victim's possession, nor regarding the circumstances behind the delayed submission.

The court also determined that the possibility of damage to the pants could not be easily ruled out, given that DNA from an unidentified person was also detected alongside that of the defendant and the victim.

The Supreme Court cited legal principles stating, "Scientific evidence holds significant binding power in fact-finding only when the underlying facts are proven to be true, the method of inference is scientifically valid, and the possibility of error is either non-existent or negligible."

The court pointed out, "The prosecution must provide additional proof that the identity of the evidence is maintained throughout the entire process—including collection, storage, and analysis—and that it is guaranteed to be free from tampering, damage, or addition. The lower court also needs to deliberate and judge the credibility of the victim's statement based on this."

The Supreme Court added, "This is especially true when such evidence is the sole or primary evidence supporting the charges, as blind trust in its scientific nature could undermine the strict standards of proof that are essential to criminal proceedings."

Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that for an appellate court to overturn a first-trial verdict, it must be shown that the first trial's assessment of evidence was clearly erroneous, that maintaining the original reasoning would be significantly unjust, or that new objective grounds affecting the formation of conviction emerged during the appellate proceedings.

(Photo: Yonhap News TV, Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.