Supreme Court Confirms Maximum Juvenile Sentence for Teen Operator of '2n Room'

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A harsh sentence has been confirmed for a teenager who operated a so-called 'Second n-bang,' imitating the 'Telegram n-bang' case, and threatened victims including middle school girls to produce and distribute sexually exploitative videos.

On the 25th, the Supreme Court Division 2 (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheolsang) announced that it upheld the original court ruling sentencing Bae Mo (19), who was prosecuted under charges including violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, with "imprisonment for a long term of 10 years and a short term of 5 years" and an "order to attach an electronic tracking device for 10 years."

Around December 2019, Bae was tried for distributing videos produced by threatening three victims, including middle school girls, in a group chat room created on the messenger app Telegram, imitating the 'n-bang.' It was investigated that he and his accomplices lured victims through phishing sites, then took their personal information or found weaknesses to threaten them.

The first trial sentenced Bae to the maximum statutory sentence under the Juvenile Act, imprisonment for a long term of 10 years and a short term of 5 years. At that time, the court pointed out, "This crime is serious and can cause continuous harm," and "There is a great social need to prevent increasingly sophisticated crimes related to child and youth exploitation pornography and to protect children and adolescents."

Bae appealed, but the second trial did not accept it. During the appeal period, Bae submitted letters of repentance 133 times, pleading for leniency, but the sentence from the first trial was maintained.

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court stated, "Considering various circumstances such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, relationship with the victims, motive, means and results of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be said that the original court's decision to uphold the first trial's ruling was unjust," and "The original court did not err in its legal reasoning regarding the risk of recidivism."