CONTENTS
- 1. The Facts of the Tzuyang Intimidation Case and the Core of the Judgment
- - The Core Structure of Establishing the Crime of Extortion
- 2. The Announced Constitutional Complaint Against the Judgment, the Three Judicial Reform Acts, and Institutional Change
- - Key Contents of the Three Judicial Reform Acts
- - Structural Change From the Existing Three-Instance System
- 3. Change in the Structure of Challenges After a Final Judgment
- - Limits of Application
- 4. Criminal Risk and Response Strategy in the Platform Era
- - Response Strategy
1. The Facts of the Tzuyang Intimidation Case and the Core of the Judgment
The YouTuber Gujeyeok (legal name Lee Jun-hee) was brought to trial on the charge of demanding money from the victim, the YouTuber Tzuyang (legal name Park Jeong-won), under the threat of exposing her private life, and of actually receiving approximately 55 million won.
This case was evaluated as conduct that acquired property by means of intimidation, and the crime of extortion under the Criminal Act became the central issue.
The case occurred around February 2023.
Gujeyeok pressured Tzuyang, demanding money to the effect that he would "manage the situation so that the suspicions about her private life would not be made public," and in that process he was found to have received approximately 55 million won.
Both the court of first instance and the appellate court found the conduct guilty and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.
In particular, the appellate court held that "the conduct of extorting property in return for not exposing the victim's private life by exploiting her weakness is of a poor nature, and the amount of damage is also substantial."
Gujeyeok subsequently filed a final appeal contesting the judgment, but the Supreme Court likewise found no misapprehension of legal principles or insufficiency of deliberation in the lower court's determination, dismissed the final appeal, and the three-year term of imprisonment was finally confirmed.
However, Gujeyeok announced his position that he would continue to contest the judgment, stating that he would even file a constitutional complaint against the judgment following the Supreme Court's decision.
His counsel took issue with the fact that, during the digital forensics process, the participation rights of the suspect and counsel were not guaranteed, that during the search and seizure process private conversations and personal information unrelated to the alleged crime were collected on a broad scale, and that some of that material was used as the basis for the finding of guilt.
Ultimately, the argument is to the effect that this amounts to an infringement of the constitutional right to privacy and the right to informational self-determination, as well as a violation of the principle excluding illegally obtained evidence.
Meanwhile, the victim's side has expressed concern about the situation in which the case continues again as a result of the constitutional complaint against the judgment.
Now that the possibility of the proceedings resuming has arisen in a situation where the case was perceived to have concluded after the final judgment, the point that the victim may face repeated legal and psychological burdens is being raised as a new issue.
The Core Structure of Establishing the Crime of Extortion
| Category | Content |
|---|---|
| Type of Conduct | Demanding money under the pretext of exposing private life and the like |
| Constituent Elements | Acquiring a pecuniary benefit by means of intimidation or coercion |
| Criteria for Judgment | The reality of the threat, whether decision-making was infringed, and whether money was actually received |
Where only an act of intimidation exists, the crime of intimidation under the Criminal Act applies, but where money or a pecuniary benefit is actually transferred as a result of that intimidation, the crime of extortion is established.
In other words, the crime of intimidation punishes the act of inducing fear by communicating harm, whereas the crime of extortion is judged based on whether the offender used such intimidation to overpower the other party's decision-making and thereby acquired a pecuniary benefit.
Under Article 350 of the Criminal Act, a person who extorts another and receives the delivery of property or acquires a pecuniary benefit is subject to imprisonment for not more than ten years or a fine not exceeding 20 million won, and the same punishment applies where a third party is made to acquire the benefit.
Whether the crime of extortion is established is judged not by the existence of a threat alone but with a focus on whether that threat restricted the other party's free decision-making and whether, as a result, a pecuniary benefit was actually transferred.
In this case, the threat to "expose her private life" functioned as a means of pressuring the victim's decision-making, and as a result it was recognized that approximately 55 million won was actually delivered, so the crime of extortion was recognized as the central charge.
In particular, in a platform environment such as YouTube, the disclosure of private life can have a direct effect on revenue, reputation, and channel operation, so such a threat may be evaluated as stronger pressure than ordinary intimidation.
In addition, even if it is argued that there was an agreement between the parties, where a threat or psychological pressure was involved in that process, it is difficult to regard it as an agreement made of free will, and the crime of extortion is likely to be established.
2. The Announced Constitutional Complaint Against the Judgment, the Three Judicial Reform Acts, and Institutional Change
In this case, the point that draws more attention than the sentence itself is that Gujeyeok's side announced a constitutional complaint against the judgment even after the Supreme Court's decision.
Going beyond a simple challenge, this announced constitutional complaint against the judgment draws even greater attention in that it publicly revealed an intention to contest the case to the very end, even after a final judgment.
As the constitutional complaint system begins to be recognized in this way as a means of contesting a case on the basis of constitutional rights even after a final judgment, it may affect the structure of responding to criminal cases going forward.
A constitutional complaint against the judgment is a system that allows a renewed determination to be sought even with respect to a final judgment, on the ground of an infringement of constitutional rights, and it is one of the core elements of the three judicial reform Acts.
Whereas previously a case was concluded by the Supreme Court's judgment, a path has now opened to additionally obtain a determination from the Constitutional Court.
This was introduced from the perspective that judicial determinations must also be subject to constitutional control, and it can be seen as an institutional change affecting not only criminal cases but also the civil and administrative spheres as a whole.
However, because a constitutional complaint against the judgment is not a procedure that reexamines the facts, it is not easy for it to function as a means of overturning the actual outcome of a judgment, and it is likely to remain a limited remedy.
Key Contents of the Three Judicial Reform Acts
System | Key Content |
| Constitutional complaint against the judgment | Allowing a constitutional complaint against a final judgment |
| Crime of distorting the law | Punishment for the intentional distortion of the application of the law |
| Increase in the number of Supreme Court Justices | Improvement of the case-processing structure |
The announcement of a constitutional complaint against the judgment in this case can be seen as an example showing that, with the institutional change, the new legal path of contesting whether constitutional rights have been infringed even after a final judgment can actually be used.
Among these, the constitutional complaint against the judgment is evaluated as the system that brings about the most direct change, in that it creates a "structure in which a case can be contested even after a final judgment."
However, although the purpose of introducing the system lies in expanding the scope of the protection of rights, the balance with the stability of judicial determinations also operates as an important issue at the same time.
In addition, the specific scope of application and method of operation of this system may vary according to future legislation and the formation of case law, and it is likely to operate in a limited manner, confined to constitutional issues rather than as a structure that reexamines every case.
Structural Change From the Existing Three-Instance System
Category | Existing Structure | After the Change |
Final Determination | Supreme Court judgment | Constitutional complaint possible |
Point of Conclusion | Upon completion of the third instance | Extended to the Constitutional Court's determination |
Criteria for Judgment | Centered on statutory interpretation | Including whether the Constitution was violated |
Ultimately, criminal cases are no longer confined to a structure completed in three instances but are changing into a multilayered determination structure that also includes constitutional control.
This change may have an important effect not only on the point at which a case concludes but also on legal response strategy going forward.
3. Change in the Structure of Challenges After a Final Judgment
With the introduction of the constitutional complaint against the judgment, it has become possible, in certain cases, to contest a matter even after a final judgment.
However, this is judged not as a reexamination of the facts but with a focus on whether constitutional rights have been infringed.
Criteria for Judgment | Content |
Infringement of a Fair Trial | Whether procedural rights were infringed |
Whether the Punishment Was Excessive | Whether the principle of proportionality was violated |
Problems With the Application of the Law | Whether there is a conflict with constitutional interpretation |
For example, whether due process was violated and whether the principle against excessive restriction was violated may serve as the main criteria for judgment.
In other words, the fact that the outcome is unfavorable alone is not sufficient, and a constitutional problem must exist in the trial process or in the application of the law.
Limits of Application
Although the scope of remedy has been expanded as a matter of the system, the actual scope of application is likely to be limited.
Category | Direction of Judgment |
Disputes Over the Facts | Not subject to a constitutional complaint against the judgment |
Mere Dissatisfaction With the Sentence | Difficult to recognize |
Existence of a Constitutional Issue | Possible by way of exception |
Accordingly, in most cases the response from the first instance through the third instance cannot but remain central.
A constitutional complaint against the judgment is, after all, likely to function as an exceptional remedy, and the substantive outcome is in many cases determined at the existing trial stages.
In addition, even though it is possible to file a constitutional complaint against the judgment itself, cases that go on to be granted are likely to be formed only in a limited manner.
This is because constitutional adjudication focuses on the function of constitutional control rather than being an ordinary trial of the facts.
Ultimately, recognizing the elements that may become constitutional issues and reflecting them in the response strategy may become important.
4. Criminal Risk and Response Strategy in the Platform Era
Unlike traditional types of crime, criminal cases arising in a platform environment combine a structure for the spread of information with a revenue model, so they exhibit the characteristic that legal risk expands in an even more complex manner.
This Tzuyang intimidation case shows how such a platform-based crime structure leads to actual criminal liability.
Gujeyeok announced the exposure of private life on the basis of the influence he had built through his YouTube channel, and this functioned as pressure that went beyond a threat and had a direct effect on the victim's revenue structure and reputation.
In a platform environment, a particular statement or disclosure of information is immediately consumed as content and has a structure directly linked to view counts, advertising revenue, and sponsorship contracts, so an act of "exposure" is likely to function as a means that simultaneously generates economic and social harm beyond mere intimidation.
In addition, platforms such as YouTube and social media have a structure in which sensational information spreads in a short period through algorithms, so the ripple effect of a case tends to expand far more quickly than in an ordinary offline case.
As confirmed in this case as well, conduct such as intimidation and extortion does not stop at being a criminal matter but, as it combines with channel revenue, sponsorship relationships, and subscriber trust, expands into a complex legal structure in which civil claims for damages and reputational harm arise at the same time.
Response Strategy
In platform-based criminal cases, the direction of the initial response has a significant effect on how the case unfolds and on its outcome.
In particular, where, as in this case, whether information is disclosed and the speed of its spread operate as important variables, a strategic approach that also takes into account the manner of the case's external exposure is necessary.
First, at the early stage of the investigation, it is important to set the statement strategy carefully, to systematically secure relevant evidence, and to clearly organize the facts.
At the same time, considering the possibility of further spread through the platform, measures for content response and information control must also be reviewed together.
In addition, because civil claims for damages, additional legal disputes, and reputational recovery issues may arise in succession even after the criminal proceedings, it is necessary to establish a strategy from the perspective of overall risk management rather than responding to a single case.
Daeryun Law Firm LLP provides an integrated response system that links responses to criminal cases together with legal risk advisory on platform and content matters, crisis response, and media and reputation management.
If you need to set a direction for your response in a similar situation, we recommend that you review a case-specific strategy through a 🔗legal consultation reservation.
