Denial of an Arrest Warrant for Violations of the Act on Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse and Camera-Based Filming

While under investigation for alleged violations of the Act on Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse, filming using a camera or other device, and possession and distribution of filmed materials, the client became subject to an application for an arrest warrant. In this case, the client acknowledged the allegations involving filming using a camera or other device, possession of filmed materials, and distribution of filmed materials. However, it was necessary to separately contest whether the conduct could also be characterized as the production of child or juvenile sexually exploitative material.

In particular, the client had a prior conviction for a sexual offense that resulted in an actual prison sentence. This circumstance could operate to the client’s disadvantage at the warrant stage, and the investigative authorities were in a position to connect the prior conviction with the alleged conduct in this case and assess the risk of recidivism and the necessity of detention more seriously.

Accordingly, the central issue in this case was not simply whether the allegations were admitted. Apart from the acknowledged allegations involving filming, possession, and distribution, it was important to explain separately whether the offense of producing sexually exploitative material was established and whether, notwithstanding the prior sexual-offense conviction resulting in an actual prison sentence, there was a specific and demonstrable need to continue the investigation while the client remained detained.

01
Whether the allegation of producing sexually exploitative material was reasonably disputable
02
Whether the need to continue the investigation while the client remained detained was established

MEGA X first organized the substance of each act and the related legal issues based on the application for the arrest warrant and the schedule of alleged offenses. With respect to the filming, possession, and distribution allegations, MEGA X proceeded on the premise that the client acknowledged them. As to the allegation of producing child or juvenile sexually exploitative material, however, MEGA X developed a position that a separate legal assessment was necessary, focusing on the nature of the filmed materials, the circumstances of filming, the degree of exposure, and whether the subjects were sexually objectified.

Next, MEGA X organized the facts concerning the progression of the case so that the prior sexual-offense conviction resulting in an actual prison sentence would not be given disproportionate weight as a ground for detention. In response to the possibility that the investigative authorities would assess the risk of recidivism more seriously by linking the prior conviction to the alleged conduct in this case, MEGA X reexamined the circumstances confirmed by the evidentiary materials and the background of the conduct. Through this analysis, MEGA X explained that the present necessity for detention could not be established automatically based solely on the prior conviction.

With respect to the grounds for detention, MEGA X separately rebutted the risks of flight and destruction of evidence. MEGA X organized the client’s residential records, employment-related records, family relationships and support obligations, and the circumstances demonstrating the client’s attendance and cooperation with the investigative authorities. In addition, based on the fact that key digital evidence, including the mobile phone, had already been secured, MEGA X substantiated that the possibility of destruction of evidence could not be specifically established at this stage.

Regarding prevention of recidivism, MEGA X also organized a written statement of remorse, an education and counseling plan, and a daily-life management plan. Rather than merely seeking leniency, MEGA X focused on presenting supporting materials demonstrating that, even in light of the prior sexual-offense conviction resulting in an actual prison sentence, the client could diligently cooperate with the investigation and manage daily life while remaining at liberty.

Denial of an Arrest Warrant