Mother-in-law who installed hidden cameras to spy on daughter-in-law... acquitted in court

"No Evidence of Eavesdropping"

A mother-in-law who was indicted on charges of installing cameras in the house to monitor her daughter-in-law and eavesdropping on their conversations was acquitted in the second trial, following the first trial. The acquittal was due to the lack of evidence proving that the conversations were secretly overheard.

The 'HomeCam' is a home-use closed-circuit television (CCTV) system with audio and video recording functions, which can be monitored in real-time through an app.

A prospective mother-in-law scolding her daughter-in-law in a drama (This photo is not directly related to the article) [Photo by Korea Institute for Gender Equality Promotion and Education]

According to the legal community on the 9th, Ms. A secretly placed a HomeCam inside a laundry basket in the study room of her Jeju City residence from June 20 to 24 last year, and eavesdropped on conversations between her daughter-in-law, Ms. B, and her son via an application installed on her mobile phone. She was later indicted on charges of violating the Protection of Communications Secrets Act.

The Jeju 1st Criminal Division of the Gwangju High Court (Presiding Judge Lee Jae-shin) announced on the 9th that it dismissed the prosecution's appeal in the second trial against Ms. A, who had been acquitted in the first trial on charges of violating the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. Since the prosecution did not file a further appeal, the case was concluded with a not guilty verdict.

Previously, the prosecution argued, "Under the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, no one is allowed to record or listen to conversations between others without their consent. Nevertheless, Ms. A secretly installed the HomeCam to monitor her daughter-in-law, Ms. B."

Violators of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act who record or listen to conversations between others without disclosure, or who disclose or leak the contents of such communications or conversations obtained in violation of the law, face imprisonment from one year to ten years and disqualification for up to five years (Article 16, Paragraph 1).

Ms. A reportedly testified in court that she watched her daughter-in-law and son silently watching TV through the app linked to the HomeCam.

The first trial court judged that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Ms. A eavesdropped on the conversations of the son and his wife.

The court stated, "Based solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used the HomeCam to eavesdrop on the victim's conversations," and acquitted her.

It further explained, "The victim only raised the issue of the HomeCam installation at the time of the complaint and did not claim that conversations were listened to," and "No video recording of the daughter-in-law and son was found on Ms. A's mobile phone."

The second trial also dismissed the prosecution's appeal, stating, "As in the first trial, the charges cannot be recognized based solely on the prosecution's evidence."