Supreme Court: "Installing a Recorder Without Owner's Knowledge Is Not Trespassing"... 26 Years After the 'Chowon Bokjip Case' Precedent Changed

Supreme Court Plenary Session: "Even Without Knowing the Purpose of Entry, It Does Not Constitute a De Facto Disturbance of Peace"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] 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, has been changed after 26 years.

The Supreme Court en banc (Presiding Justice Noh Tae-ak) on the 24th upheld the lower court’s acquittal in the final appeal trial of A and others, who were charged with trespassing. Accordingly, the precedent of the Chowon Bokjip Incident, which recognized the establishment of trespassing if someone entered a restaurant with the purpose of installing a wiretapping transmitter against the explicit or presumed will of the business owner, has been changed.

The court ruled, "If a person enters a restaurant where the general public is allowed access with the consent of the business owner and by the usual means of entry, even if the business owner would not have consented had they known the actual purpose of the entry, trespassing does not constitute a crime."

This case was very similar to the Chowon Bokjip Incident, drawing attention as to whether the precedent would be changed after 26 years. 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 entertainment and made inappropriate demands.

The trial focused on whether the act of secretly installing a hidden camera in a restaurant, where the general public is allowed access, to record conversations with a counterpart constitutes trespassing.

The first trial 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 first lured them to have a meal and filmed and recorded them with a pre-installed hidden camera, repeatedly committing the crime in a short period, which is a serious offense."

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

The Chowon Bokjip Incident involved seven government officials, including former Minister of Justice Kim Ki-chun, gathering at Chowon Bokguk in Daeyeon-dong, Nam-gu, Busan, in November 1992. They discussed stirring regional sentiments to elect Kim Young-sam of the Democratic Liberal Party and spreading 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 that 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 guest enters the restaurant where the officials’ breakfast meeting was held for the purpose of installing a wiretapping device to eavesdrop on the conversation, it is consistent with experience to assume the business owner did not permit such entry, and such an act constitutes trespassing."

Furthermore, the court stated, "Even if the act of entering another’s residence is for the purpose of exposing illegal election activities, installing a wiretapping device in another’s residence does not constitute a justifiable act."

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