[case]
Plaintiff: Yang ×.
Plaintiff: Zhao.
Plaintiff: Wu × ×.
Defendant: Liu ×.
Both the original and the defendant were colleagues of the same company. But the plaintiff is a general employee and the defendant is a company consultant.
On the second day of the Lunar New year in 1999, the defendant Liu × invited the plaintiff Wu × to his home for dinner on the grounds of New year greetings. After the meal, the defendant borrowed
In the name of playing chess, invite Wu × to his office to play chess, and stay with Wu × for the night. At about 10:00 that evening, the defendant took Wu × to the bedroom in the office to have a rest. Wu × proposed to share a bed with the defendant, but the defendant asked the two to share the same bed on the grounds that there were not enough quilts. Wu × had no objection, so they slept in the same bed. The defendant took advantage of this to hold Wu × × to kiss him and touch Wu × × 's body, so that Wu × × felt insulted and could only push it away, but the defendant still hugged Wu × × with one hand and asked to sleep together. Because Wu × × considered that the work was introduced by the defendant, and the defendant held the right of personnel management, he did not object, but asked the defendant to stop touching him and kissing him, and the defendant agreed to sleep by himself. It was not until the next morning that Wu went back.
At about 06:00 in the afternoon on February 13, 2001, the defendant Liu × called the plaintiff Yang × pager and invited Yang × to his office on the grounds of chess. After Yang × arrived at his office, the defendant hugged Yang and kissed him on the mouth while touching his body. Disgusted, Yang broke free and did not allow the defendant to continue his behavior. The defendant asked Yang × to play chess until 09:00 in the evening, when the defendant asked Yang × to accompany him for the night, and Yang left the defendant's office on the grounds that he wanted to work the night shift.
At about 08:00 on the evening of February 22, 2001, the plaintiff Zhao × was ready to ask the defendant Liu × for leave to go home, so he called the defendant in his office. After the defendant rushed back to the office, someone happened to talk to the defendant about something. After the defendant finished talking with the newcomer, he asked Zhao × to play chess together. By 11:00 in the evening, the defendant stayed with Zhao on the grounds that it was late and the road was far away. After Zhao agreed, the defendant took Zhao to the house next to the office to have a rest. After entering the room, the defendant suddenly hugged Zhao and stroked his lower body with his hands. Because of his work, Zhao did not dare to get angry with the defendant and resist too much, but only through the body to move or pull away the defendant's hand as a resistance. Zhao didn't return to the factory until the next morning.
After experiencing the incident, the plaintiff Zhao × reported the matter to his colleague Zhang × on March 1, 2001. Zhang × asked others in the unit if they had this kind of experience, so he asked the plaintiffs Wu and Yang. On the same day, the plaintiffs Zhao × ×, Wu × ×, Yang × × and Zhang × all formally resigned to their company and entrusted Zhang × to come forward to negotiate an apology and compensation with the defendant Liu ×. In the lawsuit, Zhang × also testified in court, saying that he was entrusted by the three plaintiffs on March 6, 2001 to negotiate a solution to the matter with the defendant Liu × ×, and informed the defendant that if the negotiation failed, the three plaintiffs would bring a lawsuit to the court; the defendant also admitted in the consultation that he had touched and pro-three plaintiffs, but thought that it was only a way that the elders loved the younger generation, and that the plaintiff wanted to extort money and was unwilling to mediate on the matter.
The plaintiffs Yang × ×, Zhao × ×, and Wu × × thought that the actions of the defendant Liu × × violated their personal rights, so they sued to the people's Court of City A, requesting that the defendant stop infringing upon the plaintiff's personal rights and publicly apologize to the plaintiff and compensate the plaintiff for mental pain of 1 yuan each.
The defendant Liu × did not appear in court after being legally summoned, nor did he make a written reply.
[trial]
City A people's Court held that whether the defendant touched and kissed the three plaintiffs was the key focus of the case. The evidence presented by the plaintiff is not the direct proof of the eyewitness at the scene and has not been cross-examined by the defendant in court. However, the witness Zhang × 's testimony in court clearly identified that he was entrusted by the three plaintiffs, and when he consulted with the defendant on March 6, 2001, the defendant admitted to him face to face that he had touched, pro-plaintiff and other people, but thought that it was only a way for the elders to love their younger generations. The testimony of the witness is consistent with the statement of the three plaintiffs, and the defendant did not come to court to provide contrary evidence to refute it, so the act of touching and kissing the three plaintiffs does exist and harms the personal dignity of the three plaintiffs. It has not only infringed the personal rights of the plaintiff, but also caused certain mental harm to the three plaintiffs, and the defendant should bear the corresponding liability for tort compensation. In accordance with Article 101 of the General principles of the Civil Law of the people's Republic of China, Article 134 (7) and (10) of the first paragraph of the Civil Law of the people's Republic of China, and Article 130 of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, the court ruled as follows:
1. The defendant Liu × shall, within ten days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment, make a public apology to the plaintiffs Zhao, Wu and Yang (the content of the apology shall be approved by this court):
Second, the defendant Liu × shall, within ten days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment, compensate the plaintiffs Zhao × ×, Wu × × and Yang × × mental damage fee of 1 yuan each.
After the judgment of first instance, both parties did not appeal.
[comment]
This case is a special violation of personal rights caused by homosexual indecency, which is the first case in Hainan Province and has aroused widespread concern.
The so-called sexual indecency refers to the perpetrator's use of indecent actions other than sexual intercourse in order to gain sexual stimulation, including cuddling, kissing, and touching. Sexual indecency is generally an act committed by a man against a woman or against a child. The defendant in this case, Liu XX, was an old man in his late seventies. He used his colleagues and leadership connections to call the three plaintiffs, who were both male, to chat, eat, and play chess, and then molested the plaintiffs through cuddling, kissing, and stroking their lower bodies. This kind of same-sex sexual indecency is very rare. This kind of sexual indecency was a kind of harm to the third plaintiff, making the third plaintiff feel that his body was tarnished and his human dignity was insulted. It violated the plaintiff's personality rights and health rights, and caused certain damage to the plaintiff's spirit. The plaintiff sued the court on the grounds that his personal rights were infringed and claimed compensation for mental damage. According to the provisions of Article 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Determining Liability for Mental Damage in Civil Tort", the court shall accept the request for sexual indecency that violated the personal rights of citizens. Compensation for mental damage shall be accepted. According to the stipulation in Article 8, paragraph 2, of the interpretation that the court "may order compensation for the corresponding spiritual damage according to the victim's request", the plaintiff claimed that the defendant should symbolically compensate the mental damage fee of 1 yuan each, and the court against whom the lawsuit was filed accordingly ordered the defendant to compensate the three plaintiffs for the mental damage fee of 1 yuan each, which is in line with this provision.
This case warns people that due to some perverts of human nature or different sexual value orientations, sexual indecency, a violation of personal rights, not only refers to men's sexual indecency against women and children, but also men's sexual indecency against men, and may even be women's sexual indecency against men or women's sexual indecency against women. People should be further protected from sexual indecency through the improvement of our country's civil law or criminal law.
Lu An and others were declared innocent in self-defense.
