Will the 'Chowon Bokjip Incident' Trespassing Precedent Change After 26 Years?

Reporter Who Wrote Critical Article Offered Bribes to Restaurant Staff 'Recorded'... Guilty in First Trial → Not Guilty in Second Trial
1997 Supreme Court Ruling "Eavesdropping Against Business Owner's Will... Constitutes Trespassing"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] Attention is focused on whether the precedent of the so-called ‘Chowon Bokjip Incident,’ in which it was revealed through wiretapping that regional sentiments were stirred to influence the election ahead of the 14th presidential election in 1992, will change after 26 years.

The Supreme Court en banc (Presiding Justice Noh Tae-ak) will hold a sentencing hearing on the 24th for the appeal trial of A and others, who were indicted for trespassing. The trial centers on whether the act of secretly installing a hidden camera in a restaurant, where the general public is allowed to enter, to record conversations with a counterpart constitutes trespassing. There is also interest in whether the 1997 Supreme Court ruling on trespassing clarified in the Chowon Bokjip Incident will be overturned.

The Chowon Bokjip Incident refers to the case in November 1992 when seven government agency heads, including former Minister of Justice Kim Ki-chun, gathered at Chowon Bokguk in Daeyeon-dong, Nam-gu, Busan, and discussed using government authority to stir regional sentiments to elect Kim Young-sam, the Democratic Liberal Party candidate at the time, and to spread slander against opposition candidates such as Chung Ju-young of the Unification National Party and Kim Dae-jung of the Democratic Party. This conversation was wiretapped by Unification National Party officials and exposed to the media.

At the time, the Supreme Court ruled, "Even if a restaurant is open to the general public, if entry is against the explicit or presumed will of the business owner, trespassing is established. Therefore, if someone disguised as a customer enters the restaurant, the venue of the breakfast meeting of agency heads, with the intent to install wiretapping devices to eavesdrop on the conversation, it is consistent with common experience to view that the business owner did not permit such entry, and such an act constitutes trespassing."

It further ruled, "Even if the act of entering another’s residence was done for the purpose of exposing illegal election activities, installing wiretapping devices in another’s residence does not constitute a lawful act."

This current case is very similar to the Chowon Bokjip Incident. A and others were prosecuted for entering a restaurant to secretly install and remove recording and filming devices in a room of the restaurant without the owner’s knowledge, in order to record and film scenes where a reporter who published negative articles about their company was offered hospitality and made inappropriate demands.

The first trial court sentenced A and others to four months in prison with a two-year probation and ordered 80 hours of community service, stating, "When reporters came regarding complaints about the company, they were lured to have a meal first, and the pre-installed hidden camera was used to film and record them. The crimes were committed repeatedly over a short period, showing poor criminal nature."

However, the appellate court overturned the first trial’s judgment. It found that A and others entered the room in the restaurant with the consent of the restaurant manager and that recording conversations between others did not constitute an illegal act. The appellate court ruled, "It cannot be concluded that entry into the restaurant was against the explicit or presumed will of the business owner, so trespassing is not established," and acquitted them.

In the legal community, since the trespassing case has been exceptionally referred to the Supreme Court en banc for review and judgment, there is a possibility that the precedent on trespassing may change.

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