'Baksa' Room Culprit Cho Ju-bin's Constitutional Appeal Aimed at Sentence Reduction for Sexual Assault Dismissed

Cho Ju-bin, who was sentenced to a total of 47 years and 4 months in prison for producing and distributing sexual exploitation materials targeting minors via the Telegram chat room known as the "Baksa Room," filed a constitutional appeal seeking another chance to contest his sentence, but the plea was rejected.

The Constitutional Court announced that on June 23, it unanimously dismissed the constitutional appeal filed by Cho Joobin, in which he requested a review of the unconstitutionality of Article 383, Item 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In October 2021, the Supreme Court finalized a 42-year prison sentence for Cho Ju-bin on charges of threatening dozens of female victims, including children and adolescents, to produce sexual exploitation materials between May 2019 and February 2020, and selling and distributing them through the Telegram "Baksa Room."

In February 2024, an additional 4-month prison sentence was finalized by the Supreme Court in a separate case for which he was additionally indicted on charges of forcible Indecency.

Cho Ju-bin was additionally indicted in September 2022 on charges of sexually exploiting and assaulting a victim who was a minor in 2019, resulting in an additional 5-year prison sentence finalized by the Supreme Court in December of last year.

During the appeal proceedings for this case, Cho argued that when combining the 5-year prison term sentenced in the first and second trials with the previously finalized 42 years and 4 months in prison, the total exceeds 10 years, and therefore he should be allowed to appeal on the grounds of factual error or unfair sentencing under the Criminal Procedure Act. He consequently applied for a motion for constitutional review of the statute.

Article 383, Item 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes grave factual errors or severe unfairness in sentencing as grounds for appeal only for cases sentenced to the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for 10 years or more.

However, after his request was rejected by the Supreme Court and his appeal was ultimately dismissed, he filed a constitutional appeal.

The Constitutional Court stated, "When reviewing a case regarding an offense that has a latter concurrent-offense relationship with a verdict whose judgment for certain crimes has already been finalized, it is impossible for the court of that case to re-examine or modify the facts or sentencing regarding the finalized portion of the judgment."

It explained that this is not only contrary to the final and conclusive effect of a finalized judgment, but also because the scope of review in the final appeal of the case is limited to the portion of the lower court's judgment that was appealed.

The Constitutional Court added, "If we were to accept Cho Ju-bin's argument, even though the final appeal court cannot review the finalized portion of the judgment, the recognized scope of grounds for appeal would expand, raising concerns about increasing the burden of review on the final appeal court," and noted, "This does not align with the perspective of the rational allocation of limited judicial resources."

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.