Series Index
Part 1 | Attorney Hong Seung-kwon: “AI Arrives in the Legal Profession”
Part 2 | How Should Lawyers Use AI?
Part 3 | Dividing Roles Between AI and Lawyers
Part 4 | AI Legal Advice Isn’t Enough—Here’s Why Lawyers Still Matter
Part 5 | Attorney Hong Seung-kwon: Korea’s AI Law—KRW 30 Million Fine Threshold
Part 7 | You Can’t Remove a Co-CEO Just Because You Want To
Part 8 | Why ₩10M Deposit May Not Qualify as Small Tenant
Part 9 | Hong Seung-kwon | Why Korea’s Property Registry Still Lacks Public Credibility
Part 10 | Hong Seung-kwon | Can a Seller Cancel After a Provisional Deposit?
Part 11 | Hong Seung-kwon | How Far Does Protection for Small Tenants Extend in Korea?
Part 12 | Presumption of Innocence vs. Victim Testimony
By Hong Seung-kwon
Principal Attorney, PAN Law Firm (skh@law-pan.com)
A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The rule is clear in both the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act. It exists to protect individuals from the overwhelming power of the state and to ensure that trials remain fair.
The principle leads to a simple standard: when in doubt, rule in favour of the defendant. Courts must do so not only when facts are unclear, but also when the law itself leaves room for interpretation. The burden of proof always rests with the prosecution.
Take an embezzlement case. A defendant is accused of using company funds for personal purposes. The court does not ask the defendant to prove innocence. It asks the prosecutor to prove guilt. If that proof falls short of eliminating reasonable doubt, the verdict must be acquittal—even if the defendant’s explanation is unconvincing.
How Investigators Test Credibility in Sexual Offence Cases
This framework, however, has long been questioned in sexual offence cases. Such cases often lack physical or documentary evidence. In practice, a victim’s testimony—if detailed and consistent—can become the central piece of evidence. Courts have, at times, relied heavily on testimony deemed credible. I shared that concern for years.
A recent experience forced me to reassess.
I accompanied a victim as legal counsel during an investigative interview. I expected a relatively accommodating process. Instead, the questioning was exacting from the start.
The interview lasted several hours. Investigators went through every detail: movements, locations, emotional state, and even the smallest recollections. After hours of questioning, they started again from the beginning. The victim had to repeat the entire account.
It was exhausting to watch, let alone endure. At one point, I wondered whether this level of repetition was necessary. That doubt did not last.
Sexual offence cases often depend almost entirely on testimony. Investigators know its limits. Their method is straightforward: test consistency. If statements diverge, credibility weakens. If they hold steady through repeated questioning, evidentiary strength increases.
In that sense, repetition is not redundancy. It is verification.
Investigators operate under a difficult constraint. They must respect the presumption of innocence while trying to establish the facts. The balance is imperfect, but the effort is visible. As the interview stretched from daylight into evening, one conclusion became clear: fairness depends less on theory than on how rigorously each role is carried out in practice.
About the author
Hong Seung-kwon is the managing attorney of Pan Law Office in South Korea. He handles civil and criminal litigation as well as emerging legal issues in the digital era. He tracks how developments in technology, property rights and regulatory policy are reshaping legal and market structures
