[단독]Even if they spread sexual intercourse videos, the reason is “because it’s not the original”

It has been confirmed that the prosecution has been accused of disseminating a video of sexual intercourse with a girlfriend without consent by a man in his 40s twice in a row. The previous Supreme Court precedent that distributing non-original replays would not be punished had an impact. The victim recently filed an appeal to the prosecution.

According to the law enforcement officials on the 27th, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office (Chief Prosecutor Oh Se-young) issued no charges against A (42), a businessman who was accused of shooting and distributing cameras, etc.

In August 2019, the prosecution took no charge in the same case. At the time, the case was raised by the police’s cognitive investigation, not by a complaint. The police judged that Mr. A transmitted 4 videos and 2 pictures taken while having sex with a woman B, to acquaintances without permission, through social network service (SNS), and distributed it to the Internet community. The police handed over the case to the prosecution in the opinion of the prosecution.

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment in another case on August 30, 2018 influenced Mr. A’s case. At the time, the Supreme Court ruled that, based on the old Sexual Violence Punishment Act, “only if you provide a film that directly photographed another person’s body itself, and not punished if you provide re-filmed material.” However, the videos and photos distributed by Mr. A were recognized as re-takes, and the prosecution gave Mr. A no charge in consideration of the Supreme Court ruling.

Mr. A said, “I played the original video on a computer and then retaken it with a mobile phone camera and transmitted it,” he said. “It is because the capacity was too large to transmit the original as it is.” The prosecution said, “It is true that Mr. A disseminated the video without permission, but due to the blind spot of the law, he had no choice but to dispose of no charges.”

Then, the victim woman B filed a complaint with the prosecution, claiming that “at least one video is the original, not the re-shot.” An opinion of a private appraisal company was also attached that “it is very likely the original” about the video.

The prosecution, who started the investigation again, asked the National Institute for Scientific Investigation to appraise it. Gugaksoo replied with the effect that “only if there is an original file that can be compared and analyzed, the original video can be checked.” Accordingly, the prosecution tried to check A’s past mobile phone, which appears to be a photographing device. However, the confirmation was not made because Mr. A stated that there is no. This is the background of the second unsuspecting disposition.

Victim B’s side criticizes that the second prosecution investigation was insolvent. The prosecution wrote in the reason for the indictment, “It seems that Mr. A’s old mobile phone model with the original video was’LG Electronics’ Vega Racer 3′.” Mr. B’s lawyer emphasized, “It seems that the investigation has not been so close.” Mr. B recently filed an appeal to the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office saying, “Please investigate again.” He is currently undergoing psychiatric treatment and is complaining of excruciating pain. Meanwhile, the Sexual Violence Penalty Act was revised on December 18, 2018 to punish distributing not only the original but also re-photographed material.

Reporter Minjoong Kim [email protected]