And in your legal WTF moment of the day…

So… a guy in his 40s is running a photo studio.

He uses a timer to photograph female students for their ID photos.

Now, I use a timer—well, exposure delay—to minimize camera shake on landscape shots since my remote is broken. This guy, however, used it to sneak behind the girl, lower his pants, and get a shop of him, his mini-me and the girl all together.

He provided the girls with regular photos, and saved his more artistic shots separately.

He took hundreds of these shots beginning from last year.

In May, he was indicted for violating child protection laws, but according to the Seoul Shinmun, an appeals court recently found him innocent.

Why, you ask? Because there’s apparently no law for what he did.

You see, the perv was charged with producing indecent material using a minor. The law, however, requires a subject that looks like a minor engaging in a sexual act. What we have here, Seoul High Court ruled, is just a guy exposing parts of his body near a minor without their knowledge.

And this was actually a step up—the appeal court at least agreed to hear the case. The lower court through out the indictment because the charges were specific enough.

  • Jakgani

     The law, however, requires a subject that looks like a minor engaging in a sexual act. 

    so taking nude photos of minors is OK – if they are not engaging in a sexual act?

    maybe I misunderstood it wrong?  I thought Korea wanted to get tougher on Child porn?

  • Kevin Kim

    “Because there’s apparently no law for what he did.”

    Indecent exposure?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    so taking nude photos of minors is OK – if they are not engaging in a sexual act?

    The minors weren’t nude.  He exposed himself while standing behind them.

    I still don’t know how they don’t get him on producing and possessing child pornography.  I don’t think that it’s it requires a leap to conclude that he took the pics for sexual gratification.  

  • Guest3424

    There is no law that fully explains the mysteries of why people do what they do.
    No one was harmed and no sex occurred. The court is correct.

  • Hardy and Tiny


  • Brendon Carr

    This sounds legally correct to me. If the minors were unaware that he was exposing himself, and he didn’t display or distribute their photos, it’s difficult to see where the crime is.

  • Hardy and Tiny

    Why would it matter if they were aware of it when it happened? It happened, and they are now aware. It was recorded, it’s now tantamount to doing it in front of their face.

  • gbnhj

    One wonders, then, how he ended up getting busted for it in the first place. Seems like someone saw his pecker, either actual or photographed, at some point.

  • YangachiBastardo

    I was wondering the same thing: how did he get bust ?

  • Hardy and Tiny

    good question

  • Jakgani

    You’re afraid of getting caught the same way YangachiBastardo?   Yeah… we are watching you…

  • YangachiBastardo

    Seriously Jimmy Jackass…just fuckin’ pray you never cross my path ‘cos i’ll be really curious to find out if you’re gonna keep that same funny smug attitude of yours, flora&fauna

  • Jieun K
  • ig5959292ee

     awesome post mate.

  • mightymouse

    Inappropriate act? Yes. Criminal as in child endangerment? I’m not sure about that. He was doing it knowing that they weren’t looking.  Poor taste? Yup.

  • joey

    I don’t think that it’s it requires a leap to conclude  .  

  • will.i.aint

     Poor taste?  I think that’s what Monica said about Bill . . . in another case of a man exposing his penis.  I think her actual words were, “He left a bad taste in my mouth.”

  • cactusmcharris

     Jieun K,

    I was rocking the same beat as that, too, after I read YB’s commentary.

  • Pingback: Moment of Zen: If a wang is exposed on film and nobody sees it, does it constitute a violation of child protection laws?()