[Comprehensive] Judge Oh Deoksik Replaced in 'Nth Room Trial'... Criticized for Lack of Gender Sensitivity in Rulings

Judge Oh Deoksik Replaced as Presiding Judge in 'Nth Room' Case
Public Petition for Disqualification of Judge Oh Deoksik Gains 420,000 Signatures

Jo Joo Bin, the operator of the 'Doctor's Room' who threatened dozens of women including minors on the internet messenger Telegram and forced them to film obscene materials and distributed them, is coming out of Jongno Police Station in Seoul on the morning of the 25th to be sent to the prosecution. Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy, reporter Han Seunggon] Attention is focused on the background of the replacement of Presiding Judge Oh Deoksik of the Seoul Central District Court, who was in charge of the criminal trial of a defendant involved in the Telegram 'Nth Room' case, in which women were blackmailed and sexual exploitation materials were shared. Judge Oh Deoksik has been criticized for lacking gender sensitivity.

On March 30, the court stated, "With regard to the case that became the subject of a national petition, it is recognized that there are significant difficulties for Presiding Judge Oh Deoksik to handle the case." As a result, the 'Nth Room' related case was reassigned to a different panel, not Judge Oh Deoksik's. With this reassignment, Judge Park Hyunsook (Criminal Division 22, Single Judge) will now be in charge of the case.

The controversy began when it became known that Judge Oh was presiding over the case of Lee (16), a member of the 'Pacific Expedition', who was implicated in the 'Nth Room' case.

Lee, who was a paid member of 'Doctor's Room', a type of 'Nth Room', joined the management team of 'Doctor's Room' in the fall of last year. Until he was caught by law enforcement, he reportedly operated a separate chatroom called the 'Pacific Expedition', which had between 8,000 and 10,000 members.

Photo by Blue House Petition Board Capture

◆ Calls to Disqualify Judge Oh Deoksik from 'Nth Room' Cases

However, some have argued that Judge Oh is unfit to preside over sex crime cases involving female victims.

On March 27, a petition was posted on the Cheongwadae National Petition Board titled, "We oppose Judge Oh Deoksik presiding over the Nth Room case and petition for his disqualification."

The petitioner wrote, "Please remove Judge Oh Deoksik from the Nth Room case. He is the judge who sparked public outrage with his rulings in the Choi OO case and the secondary victimization of the late Goo Hara."

The petitioner went on to say, "Afterwards, it was revealed that he had handed down lenient sentences such as fines and suspended sentences for numerous sex offenders, which further angered the public and led to even greater criticism of this judge."

As of 10:00 a.m. on March 31, a total of 421,516 people had signed this petition.

◆ What Cases Has Judge Oh Deoksik Presided Over? The Cases of the Late Goo Hara and Jang Ja-yeon

In fact, Judge Oh has faced criticism for lacking gender sensitivity in his rulings on sex crime cases.

Judge Oh presided over the case of Choi, who was indicted for assaulting the late Goo Hara (charges included coercion, intimidation, and injury). He sentenced Choi to one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years, but acquitted him of illegal filming charges.

As reasons for the acquittal, Judge Oh cited the facts that Goo had first contacted the defendant via social media and began dating him, and that Choi lived with Goo at her suggestion. He even included the number of times Goo and Choi had sexual intercourse in the written judgment.

Furthermore, during the trial, it was revealed that Judge Oh had watched the sex video filmed by Choi, stating, "The content of the video is important," which drew criticism.

Additionally, in August of last year, Judge Oh acquitted a former journalist indicted for sexually assaulting the late Jang Ja-yeon. He explained the acquittal by stating, "If sexual harassment had occurred at the birthday party, the party would have been interrupted," which sparked strong backlash.

Meanwhile, the first time the concept of gender sensitivity appeared in a written judgment was in the Supreme Court's ruling on a university professor's sexual harassment case on April 12, 2018.

At the time, the court stated, "When the court hears a case related to sexual harassment, it must understand the issue of gender discrimination in the context in which the incident occurred and maintain gender sensitivity to realize gender equality," citing Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on Gender Equality.