Suwon District Court fines YouTuber Gujeyeog 2 million won for coercion in May
Accused of threatening to expose family’s personal information under the guise of interview coverage,
YouTuber Gujeyeok (real name Lee Jun-hee) is voluntarily attending an investigation at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 15th. Gujeyeok is accused of threatening to expose the past of YouTuber Tsuyang (real name Park Jeong-won) who has over 10 million subscribers. Reporter Im Se-jun.,
,
, ‘[Herald Economy=Reporter Lee Yong-gyeong] YouTuber ‘Gujeyeok’, who is suspected of extorting money under the condition of not exposing the past of mukbang YouTuber ‘Tsuyang’, was belatedly confirmed to have been fined in a separate coercion case in May.’,
,
, ‘According to coverage by Herald Economy on the 16th, Judge Kim Dhal-ha of the 13th Criminal Division of Suwon District Court sentenced YouTuber ‘Gujeyeok (real name Lee Jun-hee)’, who was indicted on charges of coercion on May 23, to a fine of 2 million won, which is equivalent to an injunction amount.’,
,
, ‘Originally, Suwon District Court issued an injunctive order of 2 million won to Mr. Lee in March last year, but Mr. Lee contested it in April of the same year, resulting in this case being brought to a full trial.’,
,
, ‘According to the prosecution, Mr. Lee contacted the other party after seeing a post on an online community in March 2022 stating that ‘Mr. A harassed a delivery person.’ This post was written by the delivery driver, and Mr. Lee is accused of contacting Mr. A and threatening to expose the personal information of Mr. A’s mother and family members, stating that he would make it public if they did not provide a right of reply.’,
,
, ‘In particular, Mr. Lee is said to have sent a text message to Mr. A on the same day at 6:30 p.m. stating, “Your son seems to be a person who can’t stand tall. Please look forward to the next video”, and then at 11:08 p.m. on the same day, he sent another text message to Mr. A saying, “I want to know about your family’s misdeeds. If you want to refute, please contact us,” along with a photo of Mr. A’s husband and son.’,
,
, ‘The prosecution charged Mr. Lee with extorting Mr. A by informing him of the harm to his family by mentioning the idea of making public his son and husband’s personal information in his YouTube broadcast, and by behaving as if he would broadcast inappropriate details about Mr. A’s son’s past.’,
,
, ‘On the other hand, Mr. Lee’s side argued during the trial process that “sending text messages to Mr. A did not constitute coercion, and there was no intention to coerce Mr. A.”‘,
,
, ‘However, the court judged, “The act of Mr. Lee sending messages to Mr. A constitutes coercion, and it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Lee had the intention to do so.”‘,
,
, ‘Judge Kim stated, “Mr. Lee seemed to have some resentment after actively trying to meet Mr. A for his YouTube broadcast, but when Mr. A changed his attitude and refused the interview request, it can be interpreted that there was a high possibility that Mr. Lee implied the wrongdoings of Mr. A’s son in the structure and context of the sentence ‘Please look forward to the video where your son’s wrongdoings are dealt with’ and expressed a desire to inquire about the bullying of Mr. A’s family.” He explained that.’,
,
, ‘He continued, “It is difficult to see Mr. Lee suddenly mentioning the misconduct of Mr. A’s son during the conversation as the normal course of a conversation,” and “Considering that Mr. Lee intended to subtly pressure Mr. A through his son to respond to the interview, sending such a message can be considered coercion.”‘,
,
, ‘Judge Kim explained, “Considering the messages sent by Mr. Lee to Mr. A after the crime, such as the message Mr. A sent to Mr. Lee and the post on the blog, it does not appear that Mr. A was scared by this crime. Coercion is sufficient to cause fear in a person, and it is not necessary for the other party to actually feel fear in response to it, so whether Mr. A felt fear after receiving Mr. Lee’s message does not affect the establishment of the crime.”‘,
,
, ‘He said, “There is no explicit statement from Mr. Lee to Mr. A that he will publicly reveal the photo or personal information of Mr. A’s son, and the mention of Mr. A’s son was virtually the only content of the message. It is not necessary for the notice of harm to the other party to be direct and explicit.” He concluded, “Considering the circumstances surrounding the sending of the message and the overall context of the incident, as well as the content of the message, even the one-time sending of that message is sufficient to be considered as notifying harm.”‘,
,
, ‘Mr. Lee appealed the first-instance verdict and appealed on May 29.’,
,
,