CONTENTS
- 1. The Client Charged with Threatening to Distribute a Video
- - The Victim's Arguments
- 2. Elements of the Charge of Threatening to Distribute a Video
- - Punishment Level for the Crime of Threatening to Distribute a Video
- 3. Defense of the Client Charged with Threatening to Distribute a Video
- - Emphasizing That the Client Had No Intent Whatsoever to Distribute the Video
- - Emphasizing That the Client Never Said He Would Distribute the Video to Others
- - Emphasizing That the Victim Is Inducing the Client to Withdraw the Lawsuit Against the Affair Partner
- 4. Outcome of the Case Involving the Charge of Threatening to Distribute a Video
1. The Client Charged with Threatening to Distribute a Video
This is the account of a client who was suspected of threat using filmed material involving the distribution of a video.
The client said she was proceeding with a divorce and a claim for consolation money against the affair partner, against her own husband and the affair partner who was the complainant in this case.
The client received a video of sexual relations between her husband and the victim from the affair partner's husband.
In her anger, the client told the victim that she would never forgive the offense of deceiving and humiliating her.
She also reportedly sent a message to the effect that there was ample material to prove the affair, so the victim should not try to deny it.
The Victim's Arguments
However, the victim in this case argued that the client had threatened her using a video of sexual relations between the victim and the client's husband.
The victim stated that the client had threatened to distribute the victim's video of sexual relations to acquaintances.
The victim stated that, out of fear that her video of sexual relations would be distributed, she could not even carry on her daily life properly, and filed a complaint against the client on the charge of threat using filmed material.
2. Elements of the Charge of Threatening to Distribute a Video
The charge of threatening to distribute a video refers to the crime of threat using filmed material🔗under Article 14-3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes.
The charge of threatening to distribute a video refers to the crime of threatening a person using filmed material or its reproductions that may cause sexual desire or shame.
For the charge of threatening to distribute a video to be established, the following requirements must be met.
② Use of filmed material : The filmed material must be used
③ Threat : The notice of harm must be of a degree that would generally cause fear
Under Supreme Court precedent, the crime of threatening to distribute a video may be established even if the offender does not possess the filmed material or is not in a position to distribute it at the time of the threat.
As long as the offender, using as a means or method filmed material that was in fact created by actual filming, production, reproduction, or similar means, gives notice of harm of a degree sufficient to cause fear, such as the possibility of distribution, the crime under Article 14-3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes may be established.
It is not necessarily required that the offender threaten the victim by directly presenting the filmed material, nor that the offender possess the filmed material or be in a position to distribute it at the time of the threat.
Punishment Level for the Crime of Threatening to Distribute a Video
The crime of threat by distribution of a video is punishable by imprisonment for a definite term of at least one year, with no option of a fine, and if the offense is committed habitually, the sentence may be aggravated by up to one-half.
(3) Where the crimes under paragraphs (1) and (2) are committed habitually, the punishment shall be aggravated by up to one-half of the punishment prescribed for such crimes.
3. Defense of the Client Charged with Threatening to Distribute a Video
The attorney undertook the defense as follows for the client facing a charge of threat by distribution of a video.
Emphasizing That the Client Had No Intent Whatsoever to Distribute the Video
The specialist attorney emphasized that the client had no intention whatsoever to distribute the video.
The client merely expressed her anger toward the victim, who had committed an act of infidelity with her husband.
In fact, the client had neither properly viewed the video nor sent it to anyone, and she even deleted it entirely after filing the affair partner lawsuit.
On these grounds, the specialist attorney argued that the charge could not be established against the client.
Emphasizing That the Client Never Said He Would Distribute the Video to Others
The specialist attorney emphasized that the client had never said she would distribute the video to others.
The client only told the victim that she had the video of the sexual relations and that the victim should not think of denying it; she did not once state that she would distribute it to others.
The specialist attorney therefore argued that the client was not guilty of the charge of threat using filmed material involving distribution of a video.
Emphasizing That the Victim Is Inducing the Client to Withdraw the Lawsuit Against the Affair Partner
The specialized attorney emphasized the point that the victim appeared to have proceeded with the complaint in this case for the purpose of withdrawing the client's lawsuit against the affair partner.
The client is proceeding with a lawsuit against the affair partner against the victim in this case.
The victim also sent a message to the effect that they would cancel the complaint in this case if the client would withdraw the lawsuit against the affair partner.
On this basis, the specialized attorney argued that the purpose of the victim's complaint was the withdrawal of the lawsuit against the affair partner.
4. Outcome of the Case Involving the Charge of Threatening to Distribute a Video
Following the defense conducted by the attorney, the prosecution issued a disposition of non-prosecution on the ground of no suspicion of crime regarding the client's alleged threat to distribute a video.
The client had faced the risk of receiving an actual custodial sentence of one year or more, without a fine, on a charge of threatening to distribute a video, but with the attorney's active assistance the client was able to clear the suspicion.
A charge of threatening to distribute a video carries a more severe punishment than the crime of intimidation under the Criminal Act, and a person may be punished even if the victim expresses an intention not to seek punishment.
For this reason, even where the suspicion is not true, responding at an early stage may help avoid an unjust punishment.
If you are under suspicion of threatening to distribute a video, please proceed now with a 🔗legal consultation booking to receive tailored assistance from an attorney.
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
