[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] Leggings Hidden Camera Man... Why He Was Tried 4 Times for 'Guilty↔Not Guilty'

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] A man secretly filmed the lower body of a woman wearing leggings. Although it is clearly an inappropriate and unpleasant act, the court's ruling that it could not be considered a "sexual object" because the degree of body exposure was not significant and leggings are everyday wear has been overturned. In the first trial, the man was found guilty, but the second trial acquitted him. However, the Supreme Court's judgment was different. The controversial "leggings hidden camera" case, which had alternating guilty and not guilty verdicts, ended with the Supreme Court and the retrial court sentencing the man to a fine of 700,000 won.

Mr. A was prosecuted for secretly filming the lower body, including the buttocks, of Ms. B, who was wearing leggings and riding the same bus, using a mobile phone camera for about 8 seconds in 2018.

Ms. B was wearing a somewhat loose sports top that came down just above the buttocks, black leggings, and sneakers. The only parts directly exposed to the outside were the upper neck, hands, and ankles. However, due to the leggings, the curves and physical features from the buttocks to the calves were visible.

The video filmed by Mr. A at the time also included shots of the victim's entire body, but mainly focused on the lower body including the buttocks. Naturally, the curves of the lower back part were clearly captured in the video.

When Ms. B realized that Mr. A was filming, she demanded to see the phone, and Mr. A pleaded, "I will delete it right after getting off. Please just look once." Mr. A was prosecuted, and Ms. B testified to the investigation agency that she felt "disgusted and wondered how such a person could exist and why they live."

The first trial sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 700,000 won and ordered 24 hours of sexual violence treatment program. It was recognized as guilty on the grounds that the filmed area corresponded to a body part that could induce sexual desire or shame.

Mr. A appealed, and the second trial court made a different judgment. It stated, "Leggings are used as everyday wear beyond sportswear, and the victim also traveled on public transportation dressed like this," and "Being a young woman wearing leggings does not make her a sexual object."

However, it explained the reason for acquittal by saying, "It is clear that the defendant's act was inappropriate and caused discomfort to the victim, but it is difficult to conclude that the victim felt sexual shame, and she expressed that she did not want punishment for the defendant."

According to the Supreme Court precedent considered by the appellate court at the time, whether the filmed area can cause sexual shame should be judged from the perspective of ordinary and average people of the same age group as the victim. In addition, the victim's clothing and degree of exposure, as well as the filming angle and intent of the filmer, are also grounds for judgment.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment was completely different. It overturned the second trial that acquitted Mr. A and sent the case back. The Supreme Court stated, "The fact that leggings are used as everyday wear cannot be a basis for acquittal," and "Hidden camera sexual crimes are not necessarily limited to exposed body parts." This means that even if a person exposes their body in a public place for self-expression, secretly filming it can be a crime that causes sexual shame.

In the retrial held on the 2nd, the court also dismissed the defendant's appeal. After reviewing only the appeal reason regarding whether the first trial's sentence was excessive, it explained the dismissal by saying, "The sentence cannot be considered too heavy beyond a reasonable range."

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