Just another WordPress site

‘Suspicion of violating the Juvenile Protection Act’ Seo Jun-won, as a professional, take responsibility

Shocking news came to the professional baseball world last week. It is reported that Seo Jun-won, a pitcher belonging to the Lotte Giants, was indicted on charges of taking and sending body pictures to a minor he came to know online around August of last year. The prosecution applied for an arrest warrant and did not inform the club until the arrest warrant was reviewed, and it was known that he had pitched in an exhibition game until recently, causing controversy. 

Seo Jun-won is accused of producing sexual exploitation of children and adolescents in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth (hereinafter referred to as the “Youth Sex Protection Act”). What exactly is this allegation? 

In the 「Juvenile Sex Protection Act」, ‘materials exploiting children or juveniles’ refers to the appearance of a child or juvenile or a person or expression that can be clearly recognized as a child or juvenile. It refers to a form of film, video product, game product, or image or video through a computer or other communication media that expresses the contents of the relevant act or other sexual acts (Juvenile Sexual Protection Act, Article 2, Article 5). like). A “child or youth” as used herein is a person under the age of 19. 

Anyone who produces, imports or exports such ‘materials exploiting children and youth’ is subject to life imprisonment or a fixed term imprisonment of 5 years or more (Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Juvenile Sex Protection Act). Child/teenage sexual exploitation was previously defined as child/teenage pornography. 

In my job, I come across such cases, and there are a few things that many people wonder about. First, it is a case of claiming that the other party did not know that the other party was a child or adolescent. If you didn’t know that you were a child or a teenager, you could say that there was no intention. 안전놀이터

Second, it is a case where the other party claims to have agreed to transmit it. However, this crime is recognized with the consent of the child or youth, and if there is coercion, it is punished aggravated. Third, it is whether it is ‘production’ even if it claims that it was only keeping the transmitted picture. Regarding this, the Constitutional Court defined the meaning of ‘production’ as ‘taking responsibility for objectively filming child pornography and storing it in a reproducible form and giving specific instructions, etc.’, ‘victim children or youth. It is not necessary to directly shoot the video or store it on a device, regardless of whether it is for profit or not, and it is not required’ (Constitutional Court 2018 Heunba 46 Decision). In other words, having children and adolescents take and send body pictures constitutes ‘production’. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.