1. Case Overview

The client, a commissioned officer in the armed forces, was indicted by military prosecutors for allegedly committing forcible indecent assault against a subordinate soldier on two separate occasions.
 

2. Key Issues

The central issue in this case was the credibility of the alleged victim's testimony, which constituted the sole direct evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
The court was required to determine whether the testimony was reliable and consistent with objectively verifiable facts and evidence.
 

3. Legal Strategy

Attorney Jeong‑woo Kang of One Law Partners, LLC approached the case on the principle that 'a statement is not necessarily the truth.'
The defense carefully compared the alleged victim's statements against objective evidence and third‑party testimony to rigorously test their reliability.

· Demonstrating Contradictions Regarding the Alleged Dates and Times
The alleged victim identified specific periods during which the alleged incidents were said to have occurred.

However, objective evidence, including military gate access records, established that the client was either not present at the military installation at the relevant times or was attending official duties, including a battalion settlement meeting.

The defense further highlighted inconsistencies in the alleged victim's account by showing that the description of the timing of the incidents changed throughout the course of the investigation.

· Establishing Objective and Physical Impossibility
The defense conducted a detailed analysis of the alleged locations, the physical layout of the premises, the parties' positions and movements, and relevant physical circumstances.

Photographic and video evidence was presented to demonstrate that the conduct described in the indictment would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out in the manner alleged.

· Utilizing Testimony from Disinterested Third Parties
The defense secured detailed and consistent testimony from fellow service members who had no relationship with either the client or the alleged victim.
These witnesses provided accounts that directly conflicted with the allegations and further undermined the credibility of the prosecution's theory.

· Absence of Intent and Lack of Force or Threats
Relying on established Supreme Court precedent, the defense argued that even if certain physical contact were assumed to have occurred, it arose in the context of ordinary supervisory interactions and could not be regarded as sexual conduct giving rise to feelings of sexual humiliation.

The defense further argued that the evidence failed to establish the force or intimidation required for the offense of forcible indecent assault.

4. Significance of the Decision
The court accepted the arguments presented by Attorney Jeong‑woo Kang and held that:
“The alleged victim's testimony, which constitutes the only direct evidence supporting the charges in this case, cannot be accepted as sufficiently reliable. Accordingly, the criminal allegations have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The court therefore entered not guilty verdicts on both counts of the indictment.

This case demonstrates the importance of carefully scrutinizing witness credibility, particularly in military criminal proceedings where direct evidence may be limited.
By combining objective evidence, third‑party testimony, and detailed legal analysis, the defense successfully established the client's innocence and secured complete acquittal on all charges.
 

Attorney Jeong‑woo Kang | jwkang@onelawpartners.com
 

Public Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com