Gangneung Criminal Attorney | Assisting a Client Charged Under the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse to Obtain a Non-Referral Decision

The client explained that when downloading videos using torrents, unwanted videos were sometimes downloaded together, and that in such cases the client tended to briefly review the content and delete it right away.

However, the police, who conducted a search and seizure, showed the client a still image from a video the client had never seen before and booked the client without detention on charges of storing, viewing, and distributing that material.

Greatly alarmed by the investigative agency's statement that this unfamiliar video had been traced through the IP at the client's residence, the client strongly maintained that the client had never once in life viewed child sexual exploitation videos.

The client then came to the attorney and conveyed a sense of injustice.

The client worried that, perhaps, child sexual exploitation videos had been downloaded and stored alongside other adult videos, and that the client may have deleted them without even realizing it.

The client acknowledged the unlawful conduct of routinely downloading and viewing other videos illegally through torrents, but maintained that the client had never stored, viewed, or distributed any video involving child sexual exploitation material.

This was because the child sexual exploitation material still image (a captured photo) that the police had shown the client was content the client was seeing for the first time.

The client argued that, even if such material had been downloaded by mistake, the client frequently reviewed and then deleted any video files in possession, and that no evidence whatsoever related to child sexual exploitation files was found within the files that were searched and seized.

The client argued that, being aware that the penalties for videos involving child sexual exploitation material are severe and having no interest in such content, the client had never once viewed it.

The client testified that, in case of automatically playing videos that were not played voluntarily, the client made efforts not to view them by skipping past them.

Accordingly, the client argued that, as there was no violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse at all, there was no offense.