Lack of Objective Proof Regarding Allegations of Illegal Filming and Threats

The Client sought assistance from MEGA X Law Firm after being accused of serious sexual offenses, including rape, forcible indecent assault, quasi-rape, illegal filming (filming using a camera or other device), threats using filmed materials, and unlawful confinement.

This case did not concern a single act; rather, multiple allegations of harm occurring at different times were raised together. The statutory penalties for each offense were also severe, and because rape, quasi-rape, illegal filming, and threats using filmed materials were all at issue, the direction of the initial response was particularly important.

In addition, the complainant characterized and alleged various circumstances arising during the dating relationship as sexual-offense-related harm, including allegations concerning filming and threats. Accordingly, rather than addressing the charges collectively, it was necessary to meticulously examine the facts and evidence by offense and by time period.

01
Inconsistencies in the Complainant’s Statements
02
Contradictions Between the KakaoTalk Messages and the Allegations of Harm
03
Lack of Objective Proof Regarding the Allegations of Illegal Filming and Threats
04
Whether Coercion Could Be Recognized in Light of the Circumstances Before and After the Dating Relationship

MEGA X examined the complainant’s statements by separating them by offense and time period and developed a defense strategy by organizing objective materials that conflicted with or undermined each allegation.

In particular, we focused on the following:

Organizing the changes and internal inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements over time

Analyzing the actual progression of the relationship between the parties through the KakaoTalk messages

Organizing the circumstances before and after the relevant events that made it difficult to conclusively characterize the conduct as coercive

Organizing the circumstances showing that, with respect to the allegation of illegal filming, the complainant was aware of the filming or, at a minimum, that the filming was difficult to characterize as unilateral surprise filming

Emphasizing the lack of objective evidence supporting the allegations of threats using filmed materials and unlawful confinement

Presenting that, in light of the level of proof required in a criminal case, the elements of each offense had not been sufficiently established

In this process, MEGA X did not limit its response to fragmentary rebuttals. Instead, we separately examined the elements of each offense and the requisite degree of proof and organized the response so that the investigative authorities could assess the case as a whole more dispassionately.

No Suspicion of Criminal Charges