CONTENTS
- 1. Online Grooming, What Were the Detailed Circumstances?
- - Online Grooming, What Are the Relevant Statutes?
- 2. Online Grooming, What Was the First-Instance Court’s Determination?
- 3. Online Grooming, What Was the Appellate Court’s Determination?
- 4. Online Grooming, What Was Daeryun’s Strategy?
1. Online Grooming, What Were the Detailed Circumstances?
Defendant A, who was brought to trial for online grooming, was a user of a metaverse service operated by a certain portal site.
On that platform, where users can create virtual characters and converse with one another, A approached B, a ten-year-old girl, and after becoming close to her, sent her conversations that could provoke sexual desire, shame, or revulsion on 45 occasions on a continuing basis.
A demanded photographs such as “a photo with the mouth open saying ah,” “a photo of lips kissing,” and “a photo with disheveled hair,” and also requested that B handwrite a marriage vow without her mother’s knowledge and record and send her voice saying that she liked him.
After B’s mother happened to see these conversations, she reported A to the police, and on charges of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth against Sexual Abuse (conversation for the purpose of sexual exploitation) and violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), A was brought to trial.
A argued that the metaverse service he used was one in which young users primarily sign up and engage, and that, in playing house, they sometimes use expressions such as ‘husband’ and ‘honey’ and also use the expression ‘kiss.’
He also contended that “the victim has almost no awareness of sex, so she could not feel sexual shame even upon hearing such expressions.”
Online Grooming, What Are the Relevant Statutes?
🔗Grooming sex crime refers to a sex crime that arises when a person in a superior position within a relationship psychologically dominates the other party.
Recently, grooming sex crimes have expanded not only offline but also further online, and after the ‘Nth Room’ case, in which a vast amount of sexual exploitation material was produced and distributed, a legal provision on ‘conversation for the purpose of sexual exploitation’ was newly established in 2021.
▣ Act on the Protection of Children and Youth against Sexual Abuse, Article 15-2 (Conversation, etc. for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth) (1) Where a person aged 19 or older commits any of the following acts against a child or youth through an information and communications network for the purpose of sexual exploitation, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won. 1. The act of continuously or repeatedly holding conversations that may provoke sexual desire, shame, or revulsion, or of continuously or repeatedly causing participation in such conversations 2. The act of luring or soliciting the commission of any act falling under any item of subparagraph 4 of Article 2 |
2. Online Grooming, What Was the First-Instance Court’s Determination?
The first-instance court that heard the case relating to online grooming found only the child abuse charge guilty and sentenced A to one year and six months’ imprisonment with a three-year suspended sentence (a suspended sentence under Korean law, broadly comparable to a suspended sentence or probation in common-law systems, under which the conviction loses its effect once the suspension period passes without incident).
The first-instance court stated as its sentencing reasons that “he did not directly mention sexual conduct, and did not film any body part provoking sexual shame.”
3. Online Grooming, What Was the Appellate Court’s Determination?
The appellate court that heard the online grooming case, unlike the first-instance court, found the online grooming charge guilty as well.
The appellate court determined that “sexual shame must be assessed by the general and average standard of the victim’s peers,” and that “the content of the conversations between A and B provokes the victim’s sexual shame and revulsion,” and accordingly also found the charge of conversation for the purpose of sexual exploitation guilty and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment with a three-year suspended sentence.
This recognized ‘online grooming,’ which lures children and youth into sexual conversations, as a sex crime as well.
The court held that “‘sexual desire’ includes not only a desire that takes sexual conduct or sexual relations as its direct purpose or premise, but also a desire to obtain one’s own psychological satisfaction by causing sexual shame to the other party.”
4. Online Grooming, What Was Daeryun’s Strategy?
We analyzed the judgment that recognized online grooming as a sex crime and found the charge of ‘conversation for the purpose of sexual exploitation’ guilty.
According to statistics, one in three children and youth has reportedly been approached with a request to converse by a stranger through social networking services (SNS) or messengers.
As such, the number of online grooming offenses is increasing, and there is also a high possibility of facing related charges even without having intended to.
If you face related charges, rather than denying the allegations or attempting to destroy evidence, we recommend that you retain an attorney experienced in such matters to accurately ascertain the facts, systematically gather evidence, and establish a defense strategy.
Daeryun Law Firm LLP’s 🔗Sexual Crime Response Group provides assistance through attorneys with an average of more than ten years of experience in sexual crime matters to protect clients’ rights and interests. If you need related assistance, you are welcome to request a 🔗visit consultation with Daeryun at any time.
