Hidden Camera Attorney | A Case Concluded with a Suspension of Indictment After Assisting a Client Accused of Illegal Filming Using a Camera

🔗illegal filming using a camera, the level of punishment is explained below.

Illegal filming using a camera is an offense committed when filming is done against the will of the person being filmed.

The criteria for determining whether the unlawfully filmed area constitutes 'a part of the body that may cause sexual desire or shame' are as follows.

∙Objective criterion: whether the body part in question may cause sexual desire or shame from the standpoint of ordinary, average people of the same sex and age group as the victim

∙Consideration of subjective factors: a comprehensive assessment of the victim's attire, the degree of exposure, the filmer's intent, the circumstances of the filming, the location, angle, distance, the original image, and whether a particular body part was highlighted

∙Specific, individual, and relative determination: a comprehensive consideration of all of the above factors, assessed individually and relatively according to the specific circumstances of each case

A person who, in violation of this, carries out illegal filming using a camera or similar device may be punished by imprisonment for up to 7 years or a fine of up to 50 million won.

If the offense of illegal filming using a camera or similar device is committed habitually, the penalty may be aggravated by up to one half, and an attempt of illegal filming using a camera or similar device is also punishable.

The Supreme Court precedents on the meaning of 'filming' and the point of 'commencement of execution' in the offense of illegal filming using a camera are examined below.

The commencement of execution of illegal filming using a camera is recognized not merely when one possesses a camera, but when one has begun conduct that comes very close to the actual act of filming.

The Supreme Court regards 'the case in which conduct closely connected with the filming offense has begun' as the commencement of execution, and offers as concrete examples conduct such as thrusting a mobile phone equipped with a camera function under a victim's skirt or into the space beneath a toilet stall in use, or, in a convenience store, holding a mobile phone and crouching toward a victim wearing a skirt to film the inside of the skirt.

The attorney requested leniency, arguing that the client had reached settlements with some of the victims.

Among the victims in the filmed videos, the client approached those he knew, confessed to the offense in this case, and expressed sincere remorse while asking for forgiveness.

In response, the victims forgave the client and reached an amicable settlement, and they even prepared statements declaring that they did not wish to see him criminally punished.

The attorney requested leniency, arguing that the client had not distributed the illegally filmed footage.

The client gave in to curiosity and filmed secretly, but he kept the footage only in his personal possession and never distributed or shared it anywhere.

The attorney emphasized these points and requested leniency.

The attorney submitted letters of appeal from the client's acquaintances and emphasized that the client posed no risk of reoffending.

The client's family and friends stated that the client deeply regretted his wrongdoing in this case, and they pledged to stay by his side and do everything they could to ensure that he would not repeat the same mistake.

The attorney emphasized the efforts of those close to the client and the client's remorse, and requested leniency.