Supreme Court: "Secretly Filming Someone Wearing Leggings Is Punishable"... Overturns Second Trial's Not Guilty Verdict

"Sexual Shame Is Not Always an Embarrassing or Humiliating Feeling"

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Supreme Court has ruled that secretly filming a body, even if not exposed like in leggings, against the will of the other party and causing sexual humiliation is punishable.

The Supreme Court Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Justice Kim Seon-su) announced on the 6th that it overturned the lower court's acquittal verdict in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged with violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (filming using a camera, etc.), and remanded the case to the Uijeongbu District Court.

The court first stated, "The 'sexual freedom' of the victim protected under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act regarding filming using a camera, etc., means the freedom not to be sexually objectified against one's will in a passive manner," and added, "The sexual humiliation felt by the victim when their sexual freedom is violated can manifest not only as feelings of shame and embarrassment but also in various forms such as anger, fear, helplessness, and humiliation."

Furthermore, the court explained, "'A body that can induce sexual desire or humiliation' is not uniformly determined by a specific body part but must be judged considering the context of the filming and the resulting material. Therefore, even the same body part may or may not induce sexual desire or humiliation depending on where, under what circumstances, and how it was filmed."

It continued, "Therefore, the body subject to the crime of filming using a camera, etc., is not necessarily limited to exposed parts. Even if the body part was revealed by the victim's will in a public place, filming or being filmed can induce sexual desire or humiliation."

Mr. A was charged in 2018 with secretly filming a woman, Ms. B, standing in front of the bus door intending to get off, using a mobile phone video camera for about 8 seconds.

At that time, Ms. B was wearing a somewhat loose sportswear top that reached down to her hips and black leggings that extended to her ankles, so the exposed parts were limited to the area above the neck, hands, and ankles. However, the clothes were tight enough to reveal the curves and physical features from the hips to the calves.

The first trial court judged that the filmed area corresponded to a body part that could induce sexual desire or humiliation and sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 700,000 won.

However, the second trial court acquitted him, reasoning that the victim's exposed parts were only the neck, hands, and part of the ankles, that the filming did not enlarge or emphasize any specific body part, and that the footage was taken as it would normally appear to the human eye.

It also judged that since leggings have become everyday wear beyond sportswear among young women, it was difficult to view a young woman wearing leggings as an object of sexual desire solely for that reason.

Most importantly, the second trial court found it difficult to conclude that the victim's statement during the police investigation?"I felt disgusting and thought, how can such a person exist, why do they live"?expressed sexual humiliation rather than mere discomfort or anxiety.

However, the Supreme Court overturned this judgment, stating that sexual humiliation can manifest not only as feelings of shame and embarrassment but also in the form of anger.

This case caused controversy among judges when the second trial court attached photos presented as evidence by the prosecution in the verdict while acquitting. Currently, viewing and copying of the verdict and related documents are restricted at the request of the victim's legal counsel.

A Supreme Court official explained the significance of this ruling, saying, "This is the first ruling to specifically interpret 'sexual freedom' as the protected legal interest in the crime of filming using a camera, etc., and it comprehensively established legal principles regarding the meaning of 'sexual humiliation' so that the victim's diverse feelings of harm can be respected."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.