BJ Who Live-Streamed Sexual Assault After Administering Sleeping Pills Receives Reduced Sentence on Appeal... Here’s Why

Sentence Reduced from 8 to 5 Years on Appeal
First Trial Overturned Due to "No Direct Financial Gain"

According to a report by Yonhap News on November 14, a man in his 30s, a BJ who was prosecuted for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman and broadcasting it live on the internet, received a reduced sentence of five years in prison in the appellate court.

A man in his 30s, a BJ who was prosecuted for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman and broadcasting it live on the internet, received a reduced sentence of five years in prison in the appellate court.

On November 14, the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 11-3 (Presiding Judges Park Youngju, Park Jaewoo, and Jeong Mungyeong) overturned the first trial’s sentence of eight years in prison and instead sentenced Mr. Kim, who was indicted on charges of quasi-forcible molestation and related offenses, to five years in prison. In addition, the court ordered a seven-year restriction on employment at institutions related to children, adolescents, and persons with disabilities, as well as three years of probation following the completion of his sentence.

Mr. Kim was accused of engaging in sexual acts with a woman who was unresponsive after taking medication containing sleeping agents during a live broadcast last year, and streaming the scene in real time. It was found that hundreds of viewers were connected at the time of the incident. During the investigation, police also confirmed that Mr. Kim had committed similar crimes against another woman.

The first trial court determined that Mr. Kim’s actions were intended to attract viewers through sensational broadcasting content and to generate profit based on this. At the time, the first trial stated, “Given that the sexual act was broadcast live without the victim’s consent, and that the defendant sought to attract more viewers and advertising revenue through this, the purpose of the crime is clear,” and sentenced him to eight years in prison with a ten-year restriction on employment at related institutions.

However, the appellate court reached a different conclusion. The court stated, “Even if profits were generated from the broadcast in this case, it is difficult to conclude that the profits were directly attributed to the defendant,” and did not accept the profit motive recognized by the first trial. The court also took into account that one of the victims expressed a desire not to pursue punishment, considering this in sentencing. The court explained, “Unless direct economic gain is confirmed, it is difficult to recognize a profit motive based solely on broadcast revenue.”