Supreme Court Upholds Prison Sentence for Lawyer Youngseo Sohn of "How to Fight Against Plastic Surgery Clinics"... "Recording and Releasing Operating Room Audio Without Consent Is Illegal"

Attorney Youngseo Son (42, 4th Bar Exam), who became well-known as a specialist in medical malpractice cases and runs the YouTube channel "Sonbeon's SonlomonTV" under the theme "How to Fight Against Plastic Surgery Clinics," has had a jail sentence finalized after releasing an audio recording made by a client in an operating room without the medical staff's consent.

Throughout the trial, Son denied the charges, claiming that the act was "justified for the public good." However, the court determined, "It appears that the recordings were used either to pressure the hospital into paying a settlement or as a promotional tool for securing new clients."

Screenshot from Youngseo Son Lawyer's YouTube broadcast video.

Meanwhile, during the trial, the Medical Service Act was revised to make the installation of closed-circuit (CC)TVs in operating rooms mandatory. Nevertheless, the court clearly stated that recording without the consent of all medical staff participating in surgery remains illegal.

According to the legal community on July 9, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Oh Seokjun) on June 24 upheld the lower court's ruling that sentenced Son to one year in prison and two years of disqualification for violating the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. The court also finalized the lower court's ruling that sentenced Son's client, Mr. Kim, who personally made the recording in the operating room, to six months in prison suspended for one year, along with one year of disqualification.

The court explained its decision to dismiss the appeals of both parties by stating, "There was no error in the lower court's finding that the offense of violating the Protection of Communications Secrets Act was established, nor in its understanding of the legal doctrine of justified acts."

On April 1, 2022, Son released the secretly recorded audio file, which captured conversations between the operating surgeon, nurses, and others during Mr. Kim's revision rhinoplasty at a plastic surgery clinic in Gangnam, Seoul, through his YouTube channel, raising suspicions of "ghost surgery."

Son produced and posted a video with a provocative title such as "Exposing the Scene of Ghost Surgery in the Operating Room," along with screenshots of the clinic's homepage. He also posted on several plastic surgery-related Naver Cafes under the title "Exposing Ghost Surgeries at Gangnam Plastic Surgery Clinics," pretending to be Kim. Furthermore, Son installed multiple banners in front of the clinic where Kim underwent surgery and knelt in protest on the sidewalk.

Attorney Youngseo Son is seen kneeling and holding a solo protest in front of the hospital where Mr. Kim underwent surgery.

In the first trial, which was conducted by a jury of seven citizens, all jurors found both Son and Kim guilty. Son was sentenced to one year in prison and two years of disqualification, while Kim was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for one year, and one year of disqualification.

The court stated, "The act of disclosure in this case appears to have been intended either to pressure the victims, who were the opposing parties in cases Son had taken on, into paying settlements to Mr. Kim, or as a means for Son to promote himself as an attorney."

The court further explained, "In fact, it appears that a considerable number of patients who claimed to have suffered side effects from the hospital after watching the posted videos contacted Son for consultations or to entrust their cases to him. It also appears that Son recently took on cases and received settlements from the hospital in question," rejecting Son's claim of justification.

Son and Kim appealed, but the appellate court reached the same conclusion.

Both continued to argue, as in the first trial, that Kim could not be considered to have recorded "the private conversation of others," which is prohibited by law, because he was one of the participants in the operating room conversation at the time of recording.

However, the court decided that Kim, who was under general anesthesia, could not be considered a participant in the conversation simply because some of his groans or voice were recorded.

The court also rejected the argument from both parties that "the act was justified and therefore not unlawful."

Kim argued that the recording was made as a precaution to ensure a safe operation. However, the court found that Kim, who had already undergone rhinoplasty at another hospital, chose this clinic after seeing ads promising "responsible surgery without ghost doctors," directly consulting with the chief doctor, and referencing reviews from famous YouTubers. Thus, it was unlikely that he anticipated a high probability of a medical dispute arising.

In Son's case, the court pointed to several reasons for rejecting his justification claim: ▲ the recording was disclosed more than nine months after it was made, at a time when the police had already decided not to refer the medical staff accused by Kim, and no objection had been filed; ▲ the disclosed content selectively focused on information unfavorable to the hospital or medical staff; ▲ the online post included information that could identify the hospital; ▲ the protest banners set up in front of the hospital featured various phrases presuming that ghost surgeries had indeed occurred, which seemed to instill negative perceptions among incoming patients.

The appellate court also noted, "Although Son claimed in his YouTube post that he was doing pro bono work, it appears he received at least some legal fees from Kim and secured additional clients or settlements through this act of disclosure."

Supreme Court Building, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

After being indicted, both parties also cited the revision of the Medical Service Act mandating operating room CCTV installation as grounds for justification, but this too was not accepted.

The revised Medical Service Act, enforced from September 25, 2023, requires the owners of medical institutions performing surgeries under general anesthesia or when the patient is unconscious to install CCTV inside operating rooms (Article 38-2, Paragraph 1). However, the revised law also stipulates that while surgery scenes may be video recorded at the request of the patient or guardian, the audio recording function may not be used without the consent of all data subjects, including the patient and participating medical staff (Article 38-2, Paragraphs 2 and 3).

The court stated, "Although the Medical Service Act was amended to make CCTV installation in operating rooms compulsory, recording without the consent of all participating medical staff remains illegal. Even considering the intent of the amendment, the means and methods of recording in this case cannot be considered reasonable."

The Supreme Court also found no fault with the appellate court's decision.

Meanwhile, Kim filed criminal complaints against the surgeons for violating the Medical Service Act, fraud, and bodily harm, but police decided not to refer the case for prosecution. When Kim appealed this decision, the prosecution again decided not to indict. Conversely, a doctor who was targeted by Son's actions filed a lawsuit seeking damages and the deletion of online posts, and the court ruled in favor of the doctor.

The Korean Bar Association, which had selected Son as an outstanding attorney and awarded him in 2021, abruptly revoked the award in 2023.

Attorney Park Jinsik of Law Firm Between, who represented the complainant in this case, stated, "As a lawyer, Son should have resolved the dispute through judicial procedures, but instead, he acted on an unfounded conviction that his client was subjected to ghost surgery, uploading illegal audio files to websites and YouTube and even staging kneeling protests in front of the clinic, thereby disrupting the hospital's business. Despite several court decisions concluding it was not a ghost surgery, he continued to make biased and distorted claims, undermining the rule of law. This is a thoroughly justified ruling."

He added, "Gangnam Police Station made a non-referral decision regarding Son's illegal protests and online postings for reasons we cannot accept, but we will appeal and ensure he faces appropriate punishment."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.