Illegal Filming Defense Case | Client Who Secretly Filmed With a Camera on Several Occasions Receives a Suspended Sentence

The client in this case had been caught secretly filming the bodies of others on several occasions on crowded streets during commutes and on public transportation.

As the repeated filming continued, the client was caught at the scene following a report from a bystander, and was set to stand trial on a charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (filming using a camera or similar device).

Because the number of instances of filming was high and the victims were unspecified members of the public, the risk of an actual custodial sentence was assessed as high.

Determining that it was difficult to respond independently in this situation, the client requested the assistance of an attorney specializing in sexual offense cases from the initial investigation stage in order to prepare the legal response strategy the case required.

The attorney specializing in sexual offense cases conducted thorough consultation and preparation before the investigation so that the client could organize the facts accurately.

The attorney actively asserted during the trial that the client had confessed to all of the offenses and had cooperated faithfully with the investigation, emphasizing that there was no intention to deny the charges.

In addition, the letter of apology was supplemented and submitted several times, and it was used as sentencing material that clearly showed the client's remorse and willingness to reform.

In order to have the risk of recidivism assessed as low, the attorney specializing in sexual offense cases guided the client through completing recidivism prevention education and cognitive behavioral improvement training, and provided practical assistance so that the entire process proceeded without difficulty.

Based on the results of completing the education and the client's changed awareness, the attorney emphasized at trial as a sentencing factor that “the client recognized the problem on their own and actively participated in improving their conduct.”

Through this, the attorney persuasively presented, together with objective material, that the possibility of recidivism was significantly low.

The attorney specializing in sexual offense cases emphasized at trial that this case was a spontaneous offense arising from curiosity and that there was little planning or intent.

The attorney highlighted that the client had not proceeded to any other unlawful act beyond the filming, and that there had been no additional act of storing, transmitting, or distributing the recorded material whatsoever.

In addition, the attorney argued that the client was a first-time offender with no record of criminal punishment and that the possibility of recidivism was low.

According to Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7007, rendered on September 25, 2008, whether something constitutes ‘another person's body that may arouse sexual desire or cause sexual humiliation’ is assessed as follows,

▶ Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7007, rendered on September 25, 2008

In other words, the assessment is based on whether the body in question is likely to arouse sexual desire or cause sexual humiliation from the perspective of ordinary people belonging to the same sex and age group as the victim.

In addition, the following matters are also considered comprehensively in making the assessment.

Therefore, in determining whether the crime of illegal filming applies, one must comprehensively consider not only the filmer's intent but also the victim's situation, the filming environment, and objective social standards.