"It's okay to get hit because you're a feminist"... An unusual ruling against a man who "battles convenience stores" [Y Record]

■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: lawyer Sohn Soo-ho

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.

◇Anchor> It happened in Jinju, Gyeongsangnam-do, late last year. It is an incident in which a man in his 20s assaulted a woman in a convenience store in her 20s, saying that she could be beaten because she is a feminist. The perpetrator was also sentenced to prison at the appeals court yesterday?

◆Son Suho> That's right. In the first trial, he was sentenced to three years in prison. The defendant appealed against this.Ma was also sentenced to three years in prison at the appeal trial. The crime was very terrible at the time. And the degree of aggression was quite strong. And the damage was also very strong, especially the stories told to the victims were very shocking. First of all, he attacked the convenience store clerk, saying that his hair was short and that he could get hit because he is a feminist. And there is a man in his 50s who was at the scene at the time. A man in his 50s stopped and stopped the attack. Then why don't you take the man's side when you're a man? She even hit a man who was trying to stop her while saying that she deserved to be hit, and the damage was very serious. So the man who was drying suffered a fracture. And in the case of convenience store clerks at that time, they completely lost hearing in one ear and now have to wear hearing aids. It was a convenience store attack that caused a lot of damage.

◇Anchor> The appeals court sentenced him to three years in prison. There was a part of this ruling that recognized that the noticeable part was misogynistic crime.

◆Son Su-ho> There have been a lot of men's attacks and crimes against women, and among them, there have been some cases where there have been some differences depending on how they see it. In other words, the women claimed that this was a misogynistic crime.Ma said that according to the court ruling, there were parts that did not specifically mention such parts or only emphasized mental abnormalities, so there were aspects that caused some social conflict, but the same was true of the first trial in this case. Even in the first trial's ruling, it is the motive of such a crime, these things, and the motive to criticize it. It was not directly stated that it was a motive to be criticized, but this time, the defendant's crime was based on unfounded hatred and prejudice against women. And since it was written to the effect that this is a motive worthy of criticism, it seems to have an impact on similar cases in the future. Also, I think it's an appeals court ruling that can define the nature of this case.

◇Anchor> Did the defendant's words serve as a decisive basis?

◆Son Suho> That's right. There's a lot to look into in this case.You know the parts that I introduced a while ago. Even though he had no reason to commit a criminal act, especially an attack, he went on to attack, and then he told the people around him why, but his hair is short. If your hair is short, you are a feminist. And a man should help a man. It is not only wrong and wrong in itself, but it also shows the flaws in the perpetrator's mental problems, but also shows that it is a misogynistic, motivated crime.

Excerpted from
: Lee Sun Digital News Team Editor

#YRecord