Attorney for Juvenile Sex Crimes Assistance Case | Non-Disposition for a Minor Client Who Produced Sexual Exploitation Material

The circumstances of the client's case, as identified by the attorney for juvenile sex crimes, are as follows.

The client, a minor, accessed Telegram on his mobile phone and produced sexual exploitation material by editing a classmate's upper-body photograph.

In addition, he viewed and then saved and possessed several pieces of child and youth sexual exploitation material, and ultimately came to face charges of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes.

Facing a disposition at a young age, the client requested legal assistance from a sex crime attorney with extensive experience in juvenile sex crime cases in order to avoid it.

The client faced a charge of illegal filming using a camera, in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes.

🔗Illegal filming using a camera is an offense established when a person uses a camera to film another person's body, or distributes, displays, or screens filmed material that may cause sexual humiliation.

When illegal filming using a camera is established, the person is subject to the following punishment depending on the specific conduct.

As to the delinquent act of producing sexual exploitation material by editing a classmate's upper-body photograph so as to expose it, the client acknowledges the facts and is reflecting on them.

While also acknowledging the punishability and culpability, however, the client argued that, as a matter of legal principle in the application of the law, the charge is denied.

The Act on the Protection of Children and Youth against Sexual Abuse has the purpose of “protecting children and youth from sexual crimes and enabling children and youth to grow into healthy members of society, by prescribing special cases concerning the punishment of and procedures for sexual crimes against children and youth, establishing relief and support procedures for child and youth victims, and systematically managing those who commit sexual crimes against children and youth.”

The basic purpose of this 🔗Act on the Protection of Children and Youth against Sexual Abuse lies in protecting children and youth from sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, while also safeguarding the sexuality of children and youth by severely punishing those who engage in such sexual conduct against them.

In particular, Article 11 (1) of the Act is understood to have the purpose of preventing children and youth, who are developing their capacity for judgment and are in a process of physical and mental development, from being sexually abused or made objects of exploitation in the course of being forced to appear in expressive material containing sexual conduct, or being lured by monetary consideration into appearing as characters in such material.

In this case, however, it is difficult to find that any sexual abuse or exploitation of a youth was involved in the act of ‘synthesizing images using AI technology to satisfy curiosity and viewing them alone.’

If the client's conduct were regarded as the production of child and youth sexual exploitation material and found guilty, it would instead produce an unreasonable result contrary to the basic purpose of the Act.

The client therefore argued that, in such a case, the meaning of the production of child and youth sexual exploitation material under Article 11 (1) of the Act should be interpreted restrictively.

‘Production’ under Article 11 (1) of the Act requires, as an intentional offense, that the sexual exploitation material be ‘planned’ and ‘produced.’

Article 11 (1) of the Act makes the act of ‘producing’ child and youth sexual exploitation material, together with the acts of ‘importing’ or ‘exporting’ it, subject to punishment, and it treats these acts as equivalent. Accordingly, for conduct to constitute the ‘production’ of child and youth sexual exploitation material, its illegality or culpability must reach a level comparable to that of the ‘import’ or ‘export’ of such material.

A juvenile under protection's mere act of image synthesis therefore does not constitute the ‘production’ of sexual exploitation material under the Act.

The client merely tried out, out of curiosity, an AI that he had heard possessed such image-synthesis technology, and did not proceed to act after ‘planning’ any sexual photograph or video, the client argued.

Daeryun Law Firm has many attorneys specializing in particular areas of cases.

An attorney with extensive experience in the relevant area of cases conducts the consultation, and multiple professionals work together to establish a response strategy, among other forms of assistance.

If you have become involved in a juvenile sex crime case as described above and need legal assistance, you may entrust your case at any time through a 🔗legal consultation appointment.