"AI Did It"... But It Was a Lie After All

Published 12 Aug.2026 15:05(KST)

Defendants’ "AI Excuses" Unveiled

"It appears that the emails were sent due to a malfunction in the artificial intelligence program on the mobile device."

This was what the attorney for Mr. A, who was prosecuted for sending 103 emails to the victim—including screenshots of videos depicting sexual acts—in 2023, told the court during the trial. The attorney essentially claimed it was AI, not Mr. A, who was responsible. However, neither the attorney nor Mr. A could prove what exactly the AI supposedly did or how; nor did they demonstrate it in court. Ultimately, Judge Lee Beomyong of the 4th Criminal Division at the Dongbu Branch of the Busan District Court sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 5 million won in February 2025 (case number: 2024GoDan1071).

Another example of someone trying to evade responsibility by blaming AI is Mr. B, who was prosecuted for posting a murder threat on an online community in 2024. In court, Mr. B’s defense claimed that it might not have been a person but AI that wrote the comment identified as a threat to the victim, thus arguing that the indictment lacked specificity (i.e., the victim was not clearly identified). However, on February 19, 2025 (case number: 2025GoHap11), Judge Jeon Kyungho, chief judge of the 1st Criminal Division at the Cheonan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, found that this was a difficult claim to accept, considering the circumstances of the comment’s response and the characteristics of anonymous communities.

As AI becomes deeply embedded in everyday life, crimes involving AI are on the rise. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly common in court for defendants to attempt to avoid punishment by blaming actions on AI rather than taking personal responsibility.

On June 18, 2024, Mr. C assaulted a person who was filming him smoking on the street. Mr. C argued that the video in question had been manipulated by AI, but he was unable to prove this in any way. Judge Cho Youngmin of the 2nd Criminal Division at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Mr. C to a fine of 500,000 won on July 15, 2025.

In the case of Mr. D, who was caught on elevator CCTV assaulting a police officer, he also claimed that the footage was manipulated by AI. Nonetheless, Judge Sim Woojeong of the 8th Criminal Division at the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court found him guilty based on the police officer’s testimony and other evidence.

Junho Kwak (2nd bar exam), managing attorney at Lawfirm Cheong, said, "Merely suggesting that AI committed the crime or that the other party might have been an AI does not mean the court will accept the claim as-is—objective and scientific evidence is still required."

There are also calls for prosecutors to make greater efforts to prove defendants’ guilt when they dispute video evidence. Yongwoo Cho (34th Judicial Research and Training Institute), managing attorney at Lawfirm THE KIM, noted, "If the defendant denies video evidence, investigative authorities need to meticulously secure additional evidence—such as public transportation card usage records—that can prove the defendant was at the crime scene."