Press Coverage
Law Firm Jonjae Managing Attorney Noh Jong-eon Speaks Out on the Supreme Court Appeal as the Legal Representative for the Bereaved Family
Hello, this is Law Firm Jonjae.
As the prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court on July 8, 2020 regarding Choi Jong-bum, who was indicted on charges including assaulting and threatening the late Goo Hara and violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, he came to face the Supreme Court's final ruling. Managing Attorney Noh Jong-eon of Law Firm Jonjae, representing the bereaved family, stated their position ahead of the Supreme Court's decision.
1. Progress Through the Appellate Trial
On July 2, 2020, the appellate court sentenced Choi Jong-bum, who had received a suspended sentence of three years after being sentenced in the first trial to one year and six months in prison, to one year in prison and ordered his immediate arrest in court. This overturned the first trial's decision.
The appellate panel determined that the threat to leak the sexual video had caused the victim severe psychological harm, and that although the victim was a celebrity and therefore knew the damage from the video leak would be extremely serious, exploiting that fact showed extremely poor criminal conduct.
Nevertheless, the appellate panel, just as in the first trial, found him not guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (filming using cameras, etc.), and despite the extremely poor nature of the offense, the prison term was limited to one year.
2. A Court That Shifts Responsibility to the Victim?
Even between lovers, if something is filmed against the victim's will, that act is plainly a crime. Although the late Goo Hara consistently testified in court that she did not consent to being photographed or filmed, the court used the fact that the victim and the defendant were in a romantic relationship as grounds for acquittal.
Because the photos and videos were stored on the defendant's mobile phone, the victim could not delete them carelessly. She explained that if she were to argue about them, the relationship would worsen, so she intended to delete them later. However, the court determined that she had no intention of deleting them.
A violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act involving camera-assisted filming is a crime that punishes **'a person who, against another person's will, films that person's body in a way that may arouse sexual desire or shame, or distributes, sells, lends, provides, or openly displays or screens the filmed material'**. Nevertheless, the court instead appeared to shift responsibility onto the victim, the late Goo Hara. What should have been given the greatest consideration at trial was **'the will of the victim who was the subject of the filming'**.
Even though there have been many cases in which three-year prison sentences were handed down in video-based blackmail cases in light of their ripple effects and danger, it was difficult to understand the court's decision to sentence him to just one year in prison. Accordingly, the bereaved family of the late Goo Hara expressed an opinion in favor of an appeal to the prosecution.
3. Ahead of the Supreme Court's Decision
On July 8, 2020, as the prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court, Choi Jong-bum came to face the Supreme Court's ruling. Attorney Noh Jong-eon urged the Supreme Court to hold the perpetrator, not the victim, accountable for sexual violence crimes and to consider the victim first in deciding the charge of 'violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming using cameras, etc.)'.
"We sincerely hope that the Supreme Court's ruling will be one that aligns with the public's common sense and universal sense of justice."
Supreme Court Final Outcome (Update)
On October 15, 2020, Division 1 of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Park Jeong-hwa) upheld the lower court's ruling, making the one-year prison sentence final. The acquittal on the illegal filming (violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act) charge was also confirmed. Immediately after the ruling, Attorney Noh Jong-eon expressed regret, saying, "That he endured it while considering implicit consent and the special nature of a romantic relationship is a separate matter."
Other news
