District Official Who AI-Synthesized "Couple Photos" of Female Colleague Faces Dismissal

It has been confirmed that a severe disciplinary decision has been issued against a senior official at the Guro-gu Office in Seoul who unauthorizedly used a female colleague's photo to create an AI-synthesized image and posted it on social media.

According to SBS reporting on September 21, the Seoul Metropolitan Government's Personnel Commission recently decided to dismiss Person A, who belongs to the Guro-gu Office.

Under relevant regulations such as the State Public Officials Act, dismissal is a heavy disciplinary measure one tier below termination, resulting in disadvantages regarding re-appointment and the calculation of retirement benefits.

Last November, Person A downloaded a photo of female colleague Person B from the same department from Seoul's internal network, combined it with his own photo using generative AI to create multiple synthetic images, and posted them on his KakaoTalk profile.

The synthetic images included depictions of Person B in a sleeveless top embracing Person A or resting her head on his shoulder while looking at him. Under the current Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, editing or synthesizing someone's body or face against their will into a form that may induce sexual desire or humiliation is punishable by up to 7 years in prison or a fine of up to 50 million won.

Although Person B filed a complaint stating, "I felt a strong sense of sexual humiliation because synthetic images were created as if we were in a romantic relationship and even posted on social media," the police forwarded the case to the prosecution recognizing only defamation charges, stating "it is difficult to punish as a sex crime." Person A was temporarily relieved of his duties before returning to a frontline community service center.

When these circumstances became known through an exclusive SBS report last March and sparked controversy, Guro-gu requested heavy disciplinary action from the Seoul Government, stating that "Person A violated the obligation to maintain public official dignity."

As a result of its own investigation, the district determined that Person A's actions constituted "workplace sexual harassment that gave the victim sexual humiliation and humiliation" and "workplace bullying that worsened the working environment through acts unrelated to work using superior position."

Overturning the police's judgment, the prosecution also handed Person A over to trial, stating that "this incident corresponds to deepfake sex crime," and the Seoul Southern District Court recognized all charges including violations of the Sexual Crimes Punishment Act as guilty on September 11.

Person A argued to the effect that "I only had a crush on Person B and it had nothing to do with sexual desire," but the court dismissed the argument, stating, "Forms that induce sexual humiliation are not determined by the degree of exposure such as nudity or underwear."

The court also rebuked Person A, stating that the nature of the crime is grave and it is doubtful whether he is reflecting on his actions.

However, the court stated that it sentenced him to a fine of 6 million won considering factors such as Person A being a first-time offender.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Person A filed an appeal with the court on September 17, and the prosecution also appealed.

Apart from the criminal trial, the district office plans to execute the disciplinary action against Person A soon in accordance with the official notice from the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Person B told SBS, "As I had hoped for termination, the decision of dismissal is regrettable, but I think it is meaningful that the perpetrator is stepping down from public office."

She also continued her scathing remarks regarding the district office's lukewarm response.

Person B pointed out, "Even when I reported it to the district office last November, I believed the institution would protect the victim and investigate promptly. However, they tried to hush it up without much movement and only belatedly initiated related procedures after media reports came out."

She continued, "Because the district office is the workplace where I belong and must return to for a living, I tried to refrain from speaking out about the institution's response so far. That does not mean there was no pain or that I accepted the district office's response as okay."

Person B urged, "I hope that they do not move past the suffering experienced by the victim in the process just because the perpetrator was dismissed. I hope the district office also looks back on whether its response after the report was appropriate, and provides a responsible explanation and apology for what fell short. I hope victims can have faith that they will be protected from the moment of reporting and that investigations and measures will be carried out in a timely manner."
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.