성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant, as a U.S. lawyer, has been in the relationship between victim E (M, 38 years of age) and year since July 2013, as a U.S. legal office in Korea.
In the meantime, around March 2014, the victim came to know that there was two females, such as F and G, etc., who are living together with the victim as well as the victim. Around that time, the defendant and the 11-year deadly returned to the defendant.
F A statement to the effect that “the Defendant is going to married at the same time with 6-7 women, including female employees in the law office,” and written up to H was also known to the law office where the Defendant was working and became subject to the victim, F, G due to the Defendant’s discontinuance of work.
1. On April 2014, the Defendant, in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”), took pictures of video images of a sexual relationship by manipulating the Defendant’s telephone portable camera function in the victim’s home in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, with the victim’s sexual intercourse.
Accordingly, the defendant taken a video image against the victim's will that could cause a sense of sexual humiliation by using the camera function.
2. Intimidation;
A. The Defendant: (a) around April 7, 2014, the Defendant: (b) told the victim that “F would retire from office with a sexual intercourse with F and G, with a screen picture taken by the head of F and G,” and (c) received a request from the victim to “if a sexual intercourse with the victim is taken, a request to erase the screen image taken by the victim of the sexual intercourse with F and G.” (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 7, 2014).
Although the Defendant stated the facts charged on May 19, 2014 as “the 19th day of the same month,” it is considered in light of the victim’s prosecutor’s office and the statement in this court.