Cho Ju-bin's Legal Tactics to Reduce Sentence Fall Flat at Constitutional Court

It has been recently confirmed that Cho Ju-bin, who was sentenced to a total of 47 years and 4 months in prison for operating the Telegram "Baksa Room" (Doctor's Room) to produce and distribute sexually exploitative materials and sexually assaulting minors, mobilized various legal tactics to reduce his sentence, but ultimately failed.

Cho, who was indicted for sexually exploiting and assaulting a victim who was a minor in 2019 and sentenced to 5 years in prison by the appellate court last year, pondered ways to reduce his sentence.

However, the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that when a prison sentence of less than 10 years is handed down, an appeal cannot be filed with the Supreme Court simply on the grounds that the sentence is too heavy, leaving him with no proper means.

Then, Cho thought of another method.

He came up with a specious argument that his opportunity to appeal was deprived because the prosecution prosecuted him for the sexual assault separately instead of combining it with his existing conviction of 42 years for operating Baksa Room and producing and distributing illegal sexually exploitative materials.

Cho applied to the Supreme Court for a motion for a constitutional review of the law, claiming that his rights to equality and to file a trial had been infringed, but the Supreme Court dismissed it and finalized an additional 5-year prison sentence for Cho in December of last year.

In response, Cho filed a constitutional complaint directly this time, but the Constitutional Court did not accept it either.

The Constitutional Court judged that exceptionally permitting unfair sentencing as a ground for appeal only in cases where heavy sentences of 10 years or more are handed down is a reasonable restriction to reduce unnecessary appeals.

"The Supreme Court cannot re-examine or change already finalized judgments," the court stated, adding, "If the determination of whether an appeal is permitted were to be made by aggregating the sentences of cases where judgments have already been finalized, it would only increase the Supreme Court's review burden."

Regarding Cho's argument, the bench judged that it "is tantamount to asking for new grounds for appeal that do not exist in current laws," and unanimously decided on the constitutionality with all justices agreeing on the 23rd of last month.

(Reported by Kim Jiuk | Video by Lee Eui-sun | Graphics by Lee Jung-joo | Produced by SBS Digital News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.