Girl A, a middle school student, claimed that she performed oral sex for her despite her boyfriend’s objection. The prosecution believed that her boyfriend had acquiesced to a certain extent, so she appealed, but the second trial accepted her boyfriend’s argument and rejected the appeal.

(File photo, photo by reporter Wang Jie)

[Reporter Wang Jie/Tainan Report] Tainan Higher Court has recently heard a rare case of a suspected girl assaulting a man. Girl A, a middle school student, performed oral sex for her adult boyfriend. The prosecution charged her boyfriend with the crime of sexual intercourse with a teenager under the age of 16, but girl A claimed that She disregarded her boyfriend’s objection and forced her to perform oral sex and ejaculate. She was acquitted in the first trial. The prosecution believed that the first trial judged it as female A’s sexual assault, so she appealed. In the second trial, her boyfriend filed a record of the conversation, saying that she disagreed with A. Female oral sex, but female A responded "I say yes", because this sentence caused the second trial to reject the appeal.

Girl A knew her boyfriend when she was in the first grade of junior high school, until the third grade of junior high school, the two went to sing KTV with friends. Girl A suddenly pulled her boyfriend into the toilet, performed oral sex and ejaculation for him, and then the two walked out of the toilet and continued to sing, because female A was worried that oral sex would lead to pregnancy , So I told the social worker about it, and the social worker notified the relevant units, so that the case was exposed.

Please read on...

Prosecutors believe that the boyfriend gave female A oral sex by default, and also satisfied his own sexual desire, so he intentionally sexually intercoursed with a teenager under the age of 16, so he sued the boyfriend under Article 227 of the Criminal Law, but the boyfriend called for injustice at the first trial , thinking that it was female A who took the initiative to give him oral sex, and he even pushed female A away in the process, expressing his unwillingness, but he had undergone heart surgery, and his strength was not as strong as female A, so he continued to let female A perform oral sex until ejaculation.

However, the prosecutor believes that the boyfriend must have acquiesced to a certain extent in female A's oral sex, otherwise how could it be impossible to push away female A, not to mention that the reason for innocence in the first trial is tantamount to turning the perpetrator's boyfriend into a victim, and female A has never been arrested. The victim of sexual assault has become a suspect of sexual assault, so why didn't the original trial use the Juvenile Incident Handling Law to file a report on female A's assault in the juvenile court?

Is it possible that woman A made up this statement in order to help her boyfriend escape the crime?

An appeal is therefore lodged.

However, in the second trial, it can be seen from the conversation records submitted by the boyfriend that after the incident, the boyfriend asked woman A why she took him to the toilet, and woman A claimed that she wanted to give him oral sex, but the boyfriend immediately responded that he did not agree to woman A doing so. , but female A replied, "I say yes." Therefore, the prosecution's appeal was dismissed. As for why the original trial did not report female A to the juvenile court?

This is because considering that her boyfriend is already an adult, is it true that woman A's behavior is a coercive sexual assault on her boyfriend?

Not to say that there are no doubts, but the original trial did not violate the anti-order, so the prosecution claimed that there was no reason and the original judgment was upheld.