"No Need to Recognize the Necessity of Changing Constitutional Court Precedents"
Jo Joo-bin, the operator of the Telegram 'Baksa Room,' filed a constitutional complaint claiming that the criminal offense of forced molestation under the Criminal Act is unconstitutional after being additionally indicted on charges of forcibly taking nude photos of women through threats (forced molestation), but it was not accepted.
According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Constitutional Court delivered a unanimous decision upholding the constitutionality in the constitutional complaint case filed by Jo regarding Article 298 (Forced Molestation) of the Criminal Act. Jo was prosecuted on charges of luring women through internet social networking services (SNS) under the pretext of arranging 'conditional meetings,' then threatening to reveal to others that the victim attempted such meetings, thereby forcing the victim to take nude photos. Article 298 of the Criminal Act, which states that "a person who commits molestation against another person by violence or threats shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to 15 million won," was applied to Jo.
Jo argued that the scope of punishment was excessively broad and that the meanings of 'violence' or 'threats' were ambiguous, violating constitutional principles.
However, the Constitutional Court ruled the law constitutional, stating, "There is no recognized change in circumstances or necessity to alter the precedent of the Constitutional Court." The court noted, "Supreme Court rulings considered the need to clarify interpretative standards in light of changes in social awareness of sexual violence crimes, legal precedents, and judicial practice."
The Constitutional Court added, "Such interpretation falls within a predictable range when considering the ordinary meaning of the text, legislative intent, the overall legal order, and relationships with other provisions," and stated, "A person with sound common sense and ordinary legal sensibility can understand which acts constitute 'violence or threats' under the forced molestation offense, so it cannot be seen as violating the principle of clarity in criminal law."
The court also judged that, considering the nature of the forced molestation offense, the scope of punishment is not excessively broad, and it is reasonable to exclude it from being a complaint-based or non-prosecution offense that does not punish against the victim's will. Jo's forced molestation charges were consistently recognized as guilty by the courts, and in February, the Supreme Court confirmed a four-month prison sentence.
Meanwhile, Jo has been serving a prison sentence after the Supreme Court confirmed a 42-year imprisonment sentence in the so-called 'Baksa Room case,' in which he threatened dozens of female victims, including children and adolescents, from May 2019 to February 2020, produced sexual exploitation materials, and sold and distributed them through the Baksa Room.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
