One Year for Kevin Lee Print E-mail
( 0 Votes )
Written by Administrator   
Thursday, 21 March 2013 00:00

Kevin Lee“Jesus Understands Me” is what acupuncturist and massage therapist Kun Lin Lee, known as “Kevin Lee” had to say on Friday, March 15th after he was found guilty of aggravated assault of an indecent nature and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment in Magistrate’s Court.

Lee was found guilty after a 20-yer-old woman, who went to his business place to get a back massage in April 2011, testified in the Court room of Senior Magistrate, Sharon Frazer that instead of getting a back massage, she was assaulted by Lee.  He touched her breasts, buttocks and tried to touch her private parts as well.

After paying Lee $60.00, the woman said she annoyed by Lee’s inappropriate touches. She told a friend, who laughed at her allegations, but she then took the matter to the police months later.

Before handing down the sentence, Lee’s attorney, Alifah Elrington-Hyde made a submission to the court asking the court to be lenient on her client since this was his first conviction. Hyde asked the court to impose a non-custodial sentence since it was his first offense and since Lee has not been able to travel to Taiwan to see his ailing wife for more than a year.

Senior Magistrate, Sharon Frazer made it clear to his attorney, however, that the penalty for such an offense is not a non-custodial sentence especially since the evidence before the court showed Lee’s guilt and it proved that he took advantage of the woman who had gone to him and placed her trust and faith in him.

Lee then interjected and asked if he can appeal. The Senior Magistrate told him, “Appeal is your right.” She even informed him that he has 21 days in which he can do so.

The Senior Magistrate Sharon Frazer told Lee that the offense of aggravated assault of an indecent nature is a very serious offense and while she would not impose the maximum of 2 years, she will send him to jail for 1 year.

Before finding him guilty, the Senior Magistrate told Lee that of all the evidence he brought before the court, which included a receipt book, the records of his client’s payments, she said she found those to be suspect. She said his demeanor during the trial, especially in the manner of his responses to the questions and answers brought out through his interpreter, she found him not being truthful to the court.
She concluded to say that, in light of his behavior, she had to go back to the victim’s testimony of which she found to be credible.

The only question she had to ask herself at the end of the victim’s testimony was whether  the victim had an axe to grind or if she had something against him” or whether she had a reason to tell a lie about him.

In the end, she found that the victim had no reason to lie to the court.