HOKKAIDO (TR) – A feminine pupil at a non-public highschool right here in 2022 filed a lawsuit in opposition to a former male teacher, alleging that she was repeatedly compelled into sexual acts whereas she was nonetheless a pupil.
On February 20, the Sapporo District Court handed down a judgment ordering the defendant to pay 11 million yen in damages. She had sought 20 million yen.
The plaintiff, who’s now in her 20s, additionally filed a declare for damages in opposition to the college company based mostly on employer legal responsibility, however this was dismissed on the grounds that the sexual acts came about at instances and in locations unrelated to courses, stories the Mainichi Shimbun (Feb. 20).
Presiding decide Osamu Moriyama criticized the defendant: “The man was older than her and in a student-teacher relationship. He took advantage of her immature judgment and forced her to satisfy his sexual desires.”
“I didn’t mean to scare you”
The plaintiff entered the Hokkaido Arts High School Sapporo Satellite Campus, which is run by company Kyokei Gakuen, in April 2016 on the age of 15.
The defendant, who additionally works as a manga artist, was a drawing teacher in command of the plaintiff’s courses. He is 30 years older than the plaintiff.
According to the ruling, the plaintiff took courses from the instructor, and was groped in a automobile throughout her first yr. She was additionally ceaselessly compelled to interact in sexual acts in motels and different places earlier than graduating, leading to her creating PTSD.
“I didn’t mean to scare you”
During breaks at school, he stated issues like, “I’ll tell you about manga.” He additionally stated, “I’ll tell you some behind-the-scenes stories.” Later, the 2 exchanged contact data on the chat app Line.
One day throughout her first yr of highschool, the defendant provided to take her residence after she was engaged on her homework late, however as a substitute drove in a distinct course. He stopped in a abandoned space and engaged in lewd acts, together with groping her.
After the plaintiff returned residence, she despatched him a Line message. She wrote, “I was scared, but thank you for giving me a ride.” He replied, “I didn’t mean to scare you, I’m shocked.”
At a press convention, the legal professional representing the plaintiff defined, “By showing a negative reaction to the student who told him she was scared, the plaintiff gradually entered a psychological state whereby she could not resist the defendant.”
“I’m 16”
The plaintiff alleges that from round winter of the identical yr, the defendant started to contact her exterior of faculty repeatedly, finally taking her to a lodge the place that they had sexual activity. Despite the plaintiff’s refusal — “I’m 16, [you] can’t penetrate me. It would be wrong as a teacher and student,” she stated — the defendant ignored her.
After that, the defendant continued to accompany her to motels a couple of times a month, and the sexual acts steadily escalated, the lawsuit said. He allegedly dedicated a number of lewd acts, together with forcing her to eat feces, having intercourse together with her whereas feces was smeared on her face, forcing her to stroll bare exterior, and photographing her with phrases like “slave” and “pet” written on her physique.
“State of dissociation”
In her assertion, the plaintiff stated: “I used all my senses during the acts. It was so painful that I felt like I was going crazy. So I tried to distance myself as much as possible so I wouldn’t feel anything. As I repeated this, I developed a habit of pushing myself out of my mind, and I began to fall into a state of dissociation.”
These acts continued till the plaintiff graduated from highschool in March 2019. Even after she moved exterior of Hokkaido, the defendant continued to request photographs of her breasts and genitals, and the contact continued till July of the identical yr, the plaintiff claimed.
“Serious relationship”
Meanwhile, the defendant maintained that these acts “were carried out with the plaintiff’s consent in the context of a serious relationship.”
The defendant maintained that they have been in a severe relationship and denied any causal relationship between the sexual acts and her PTSD. However, the ruling said, “It is recognized that the nature of the sexual acts caused PTSD, and that they could have harmed her both physically and mentally.”
It went on, “While the decision to engage in sexual acts is a woman’s responsibility and a free decision, she was a minor at the time and it cannot be said she means to make a sufficient judgment.”
The defendant additionally argued that the medical certificates offering proof that the plaintiff had suffered from PTSD because of the defendant’s actions was unreliable, citing it as having been ready on the course of the plaintiff’s legal professional.
The courtroom rejected the defendant’s arguments.
Regarding the PTSD prognosis, the courtroom dominated that “it was the doctor, not the plaintiff’s attorney, who first suggested the possibility of PTSD, and that the diagnosis was based on medical history prior to that,” and that “it is reasonable to conclude that the series of sexual acts with the defendant was a traumatic experience that led to the PTSD.”
“Not closely related to the corporation’s business”
The courtroom ordered compensation of 11 million yen, together with 10 million yen in psychological damages and 1 million yen in legal professional’s charges.
In February 2020, the defendant was given a abstract order to pay a 300,000 yen fantastic for violating the Child Pornography Prohibition Act.
Meanwhile, the courtroom denied the company’s legal responsibility as an employer, stating, “The man’s illegal acts were committed at a time, place, and unrelated to classes, and are not closely related to the corporation’s business.”
At the press convention, the plaintiff stated, “I want all teachers to understand that it is wrong to lay hands on someone. I wanted a sincere apology.” Her legal professional said, “The psychological damage that will continue to occur has been evaluated.” The legal professional went on, “While employer liability was not recognized, the school has not provided any guidance to the teacher who committed the offense.”
The defendant’s lawyer indicated his intention to attraction. The lawyer stated, “The court’s impression seems to be different from the evidence we submitted. We would like to seek a new judgment.”