What are the issues in the Hwang Ui-jo case as seen by a sex crime lawyer?
It looks like Hwang Ui-jo's video battle is turning into a full-fledged legal battle. Hwang Eui-jo, who was investigated as a suspect on the 18th, announced that he had been threatened for a video of his private life and at the same time claimed his innocence.
However, the alleged victim of illegal filming stated, "Even though I refused, Hwang Ui-jo ignored me and filmed me," and countered by saying, "We met briefly, but I never consented to filming the video, and I also requested that the video be deleted." It's getting bigger.
What does Phillip Noh of Ohhyun Law Firm, a sex crimes lawyer, think about the ongoing legal battle? He could hear stories about this.
First, regarding whether Hwang Ui-jo's filming could result in a crime, lawyer Philip Noh said, "Based on media reports and player Hwang Ui-jo's statement of position, Hwang Ui-jo filmed the video while having sexual intercourse with the other woman(s)." “There appears to be one fact,” he explained.
He continued, "However, filming a sexual relationship itself is not a crime. Filming against the other person's consent and distributing the video without the other person's consent, even if it is a video taken with the other person's consent, are crimes. What angle is the video filmed by Hwang Ui-jo? It can be clearly seen by looking at whether the shooting was filmed and whether the characters were aware of the filming, but simply because the victim sent a message after the fact, such as “I said I didn’t want to do it,” it can be concluded that the filming was conducted against his will. “There is no,” he added.
In addition, "among the cases in which this lawyer actually defended the suspects, there are many cases where the person was found not guilty after comprehensively judging the behavior of the characters in the video and whether or not they were aware of the filming. In other words, the relevant filming, etc. is currently available. If it exists, should it be determined whether the woman in question was aware of the filming by analyzing the actions and remarks of the characters in the film, whether they were aware of the camera, etc.? Can it be concluded that it is an illegal film simply based on a message sent after the fact? “There is no,” he said.
However, when it is distributed, the story is different. Attorney Philip Noh said, "Isn't filming with consent illegal? As I said before, filming with the consent of both parties is not illegal. Although one may have general questions about why such an act is done in terms of ethics or social norms, it is not illegal to film with the consent of the parties." "You cannot make it a crime. However, if a video taken because you liked it at the time is distributed against the will of one of the parties, it is a serious crime punishable under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act," he said, avoiding punishment if it was distributed against the will of the person involved. He explained that it was difficult.
Next, regarding whether or not being threatened can be taken into consideration when considering sentencing, "This is a question that can be answered on the premise that Hwang Ui-jo's filming was a crime. If we assume that Hwang Ui-jo's filming was a crime, then it is reasonable to assume that Hwang Eui-jo was threatened by the person who distributed it. I don't think it can be an extenuating circumstance. If Hwang Ui-jo filmed a sexual relationship because he was threatened, it can be seen as an extenuating circumstance in sentencing or a reason for diminishing responsibility by considering it as a coerced act. However, the threat of the person who distributed it is not such a relationship, so it can be seen as an extenuating circumstance. “It’s irrelevant,” he said.
In addition, "If Hwang Ui-jo's crime is acknowledged, the charge appears to be a violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming using cameras, etc.). If the filming was done secretly, that is, if it was a crime, there would be only one or two victims, and a significant amount of money would be involved with the victims. “If an agreement has been reached and the crime in the video is relatively minor, such as the victim’s face not appearing properly in the video, deferred prosecution may be possible,” he said.
However, "Currently, there are claims that there are many victims, and there is talk that the level of the video or the number of videos is significant, so if these contents are recognized as a crime, it is a crime for which imprisonment and court detention are fully possible in some cases. In this case, life as a soccer player “I think the problem is not this problem, but life,” he added.
In addition, "Hwang Ui-jo is currently staying in England. It may be an issue where he is wanted, but Hwang Ui-jo is staying in England on a local visa, his identity is clear, and a lawyer is being appointed to respond, so it is difficult to say that there is a risk of flight, so no action will be taken immediately." “There won’t be an earthquake,” he said.
However, if the investigative agency is deemed to be fleeing the country by not cooperating with the investigation, such as by continuously failing to comply with the investigation, the investigative agency may proceed with passport invalidation through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In this case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will first proceed with an order to return the passport. “If you continue to fail to comply, we will take measures to invalidate your passport,” he explained.
However, "Considering Hwang Ui-jo's status and current response situation, it is unlikely that the case will proceed as above, and the defense attorney will conduct an attendance investigation after appropriate consultation with the investigative agency. Usually, wanted refers to wanted by Interpol, but in cases like this, “We will not proceed with an Interpol wanted search, etc. This is not an issue like that,” he said.
As a criminal lawyer, I was able to hear about the future prospects for the Hwang Ui-jo case. Attorney Philip Noh said, "As for camera shooting cases, the corporation where this lawyer works handles more than hundreds of cases a year. In recent cases of such crime of filming using cameras, etc., even if the original video does not exist, the circumstances and the details of the victim are There are many cases that lead to criminal punishment if it is shown that there was illegal filming with just consistent statements. Therefore, from Hwang Ui-jo's perspective, unless he denies the existence of the film in question, he must clearly prove that the film in question was filmed with mutual consent. “He said.
He continued, "The important part is not simply that the cell phone was placed in a place where it can be found, but whether the victim in the video can be seen to be aware of the fact that it was filmed. If there is video, this should be actively explained." “It must be done. If there are even one or two cuts in the overall video that show the camera being recognized, the charges can be dropped,” Hwang Ui-jo explained about ways to prove his innocence.
In addition, "The victim said, "Obviously, you didn't delete it at the time, you clearly asked me to delete it, and I said no, so why is it still there?" According to the media reports, the victim's comments indicate that there was no consent to the video being filmed. Rather, it seems to be a protest against the fact that he kept holding the video even though he thought he had deleted it. If so, it is not a claim that the victim was not aware that Hwang Ui-jo was filming the video at the time of sexual intercourse, but furthermore, it is interpreted as a claim that he was already aware that there was a video of the sexual intercourse. "I don't know how advantageous and meaningful the claim is to the victim. In particular, it was confirmed through media reports that the victim was mainly concerned about distribution, so it appears that he was already aware of the fact of filming or the existence of the video." I judged.
He continued, "Hwang Ui-jo's side will mainly use these aspects to defend himself, and the victim's side must strongly appeal that he was not aware of the filming itself at the time of sexual intercourse and did not consent to it. In the current situation, Hwang Ui-jo is simply filming illegally. “It appears that it cannot be concluded that he did it, and it is judged that the facts of the charges will become clear only when more specific circumstances are revealed in the future,” he expresse
Comments
Post a Comment