Pro Golfer Secretly Drugged Female Colleague, Controversy Over YouTube Resumption

No Way to Prevent Criminal Activities Under YouTube's Terms of Service

A professional golfer and YouTuber who secretly gave a female colleague drugs disguised as a 'hangover cure' at a drinking party has sparked controversy by resuming YouTube activities despite being sentenced to prison in the first trial.

Pro golfer Mr. Jo is accused of receiving three free doses of the psychotropic drug Ecstasy from acquaintances in June last year and consuming them in his foreign car and club. In July of the same year, he is also accused of deceiving a fellow female pro golfer, Ms. A, who was with him at a nightlife venue, into swallowing Ecstasy by telling her it was a 'hangover cure.'

After the drinking party, Ms. A felt something was wrong with her body and reported it directly to the police, which revealed Mr. Jo's crime.

The court stated, "It is necessary to severely punish those who secretly feed drugs to others," but also noted, "The defendant paid an amount exceeding the civil damages claimed by the victim and reached a civil settlement with the victim," as a mitigating factor.

Furthermore, the court explained the sentencing reasons, saying, "The defendant showed remorse and confessed to the possession and administration of the drugs," and "considering the relatively small amount of Ecstasy possessed and administered by the defendant."

Mr. Jo Uploads Videos Despite Guilty Verdict... Due to the 6-Month Rule?

A professional golfer and YouTuber who secretly gave a female colleague drugs disguised as a "hangover cure" at a drinking party was sentenced to prison in the first trial but has resumed YouTube activities, sparking controversy.
[Photo by YouTube]

Despite being found guilty, Mr. Jo's side posted a new video on his YouTube channel on the 10th of this month, just about 20 days after the verdict. This was about six months after he was arrested in September last year for drug charges. Although he received a suspended sentence and the second trial is ongoing, controversy has arisen as he resumed activities without self-restraint.

In the video, a fellow pro golfer appeared instead of Mr. Jo and said, "I am Jo Pro's student, and this is my first shoot, so I am nervous." After explaining how to reduce driver distance loss, he said, "If you have more questions, please ask in the comments." However, after the video was uploaded, some netizens left critical comments, and Mr. Jo's side has since closed the comment section.

Some interpret the resumption of activities after about six months as an attempt to generate revenue. YouTube's terms state that "if a channel is inactive for more than six months or community posts are not uploaded or posted, YouTube reserves the right to revoke the channel's monetization eligibility at its discretion." Mr. Jo's YouTube channel has 250,000 subscribers.

It is understood that the reason Mr. Jo's side pushed to release the video on the YouTube channel is due to the so-called 'YouTube 6-month rule' regarding monetization policies.

YouTube's terms stipulate, "If a channel is inactive for more than six months or community posts are not uploaded or posted, YouTube reserves the right to revoke the channel's monetization eligibility at its discretion."

Controversial YouTubers Usually Resume Within 6 Months... No Way to Stop Criminal YouTubers' Activities

YouTube's terms state that "if a channel has been inactive for more than 6 months or community posts have not been uploaded or posted, YouTube reserves the right to revoke the channel's monetization eligibility at its discretion."
[Image source=Pixabay]

Not only Mr. Jo but most YouTubers who have been socially controversial or condemned often close their channels saying they will 'self-reflect' but return before the six-month mark when monetization is cut off.

Mr. Jo also uploaded his last video at the end of September, when he was arrested and under investigation. On the 10th, 17 days before the six-month mark, he uploaded a video, seemingly to prevent the loss of monetization.

However, regardless of the criticism against Mr. Jo, it appears that his YouTube activities themselves cannot be stopped. Unlike broadcasting channels that have guidelines to suspend appearances of people who cause public disturbance through criminal acts, YouTube has no such regulations.

The Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC) regulations are the same. Article 7, Paragraph 3 of the Broadcasting Review Regulations, which also apply to YouTube, states that "information that glorifies crimes, criminals, or criminal organizations and may make crimes appear justified shall not be distributed," but there is no clause to stop the activities of people who have committed crimes.

Meanwhile, the prosecution, which had requested a five-year prison sentence for Mr. Jo in the first trial, has filed an appeal against the verdict.