On March 12, 2025, the Seoul High Court Civil Division 3-3 delivered its ruling on the civil compensation lawsuit brought by Kim Ji-eun against former Chungnam governor Ahn Hee-jung and Chungcheongnam-do province. The court ordered Ahn Hee-jung to pay approximately 83.04 million won (around $70,000) to Kim Ji-eun as compensation for damages resulting from sexual assault. This decision marks one of the significant developments related to the high-profile #MeToo case involving Ahn, who previously faced criminal charges for multiple sexual assaults against Kim during his tenure.
The ruling from the second trial adjusted the compensation amount from the 83.47 million won awarded by the first trial court, which had determined Ahn would pay 30 million won, with Chungcheongnam-do jointly liable for 53.47 million won. This latest ruling slightly reduces the financial responsibility initially imposed on Ahn Hee-jung. Specifically, the adjustments were made due to modifications in the assessment of damages such as the 'odious consolation money' and future treatment costs linked to the psychological suffering caused by the assaults.
Kim Ji-eun's legal representative, attorney Park Won-kyung, expressed regret over the court's decision, indicating disappointment at the lack of acknowledgment for the full extent of damages faced by Kim, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from the incidents. Following the verdict, Park stated to the press, "We will discuss Kim's opinions about the ruling and review the verdict documentation to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court." He highlighted challenges endured over the prolonged judicial process and indicated it was necessary for them to proceed, demonstrating courage through the appeal process.
Ahn Hee-jung’s legal team had challenged the procedures relating to evidence handling during the trials, which they argued led to delays and complications. They suggested the need for additional forensic examination, which Kim’s side countered. This continued back-and-forth between the two camps was indicative of the tension and complexity surrounding what is seen as one of South Korea’s landmark sexual assault lawsuits.
This case traces back to incidents between July 2017 and February 2018, where Ahn Hee-jung was accused of sexual assault and indecent acts against Kim, who served as his secretary. It was the details of these allegations which ignited the #MeToo movement within South Korea, prompting conversations about gender inequality and sexual violence. Following his indictment, Ahn Hee-jung received a prison sentence of three years and six months, confirmed by the Supreme Court, and he was released at the end of his term in August 2022.
Post-release, Kim Ji-eun took legal action against Ahn and the provincial government, seeking 300 million won to cover the extensive psychological therapy and compensation for damages related to the assaults. Despite the judicial adjustments, Kim’s attorneys maintained the stance the financial compensation did not adequately reflect the serious nature of the past abuses and the impact on her mental health.
During the first trial, held last year, the court recognized Ahn's misconduct and the resultant challenges faced by Kim, including secondary victimization involving leaked medical records—an issue noted by the court which significantly impeded Kim’s recovery process. This dynamic between the plaintiff and defendant became more complicated with mounting social pressures, media scrutiny, and public discourse surrounding both the #MeToo movement and the functioning of judicial proceedings concerning evidence submission.
While the decision from March 12 would appear to be another stride toward justice for Kim Ji-eun, her legal team remains vocal about the inadequacies within the framework they believe restrict justice for assault victims within the judiciary. They plan to review the ruling and assess the viability of pursuing the matter to higher courts, should they view it necessary for the accountability of Ahn Hee-jung and the responsibilities of the provincial government.
The outcome of this case could have wider ramifications. Legal representatives and advocacy groups supporting victims of sexual assault maintain vigilance over the case, as the continually faced challenges highlight systemic issues within the legal response to such offenses. This raises questions not only about individual cases but about the structures and supports necessary to facilitate justice and healing for victims.
Kim Ji-eun’s situation reflects the broader struggles many victims of sexual violence endure, both during court proceedings and afterward, as they try to restore their lives and seek accountability from their perpetrators. The outcome of Kim's decision to appeal could potentially illuminate new pathways or policy discussions aimed at supporting victims and improving judicial processes.