"Looks Like They're Having an Affair": What If You Opened a KakaoTalk Chat, Filmed It, and Shared the Video With Coworkers?

Employee Filmed and Shared Coworker's KakaoTalk Chats About an Affair
Court Suspends Imposition of Fine
"No Public Interest Found in Invasion of Privacy"... 1 Million Won Fine

A court suspended the imposition of a fine on an employee at a child welfare facility who secretly photographed and circulated a coworker’s KakaoTalk conversation.

Kim Ju-hyeon, presiding judge of the Criminal Division 2 (single-judge panel) at the Chungju Branch of the Cheongju District Court, announced on October 11 that the court had suspended the imposition of a 1 million won fine on A, who was indicted on charges of violating the Information and Communications Network Act and defamation.

A was sent to trial on charges of photographing a coworker’s conversation on the coworker’s KakaoTalk account, which was logged in on a shared computer, in June 2024, then sending it to another employee and revealing the coworker’s affair.

A claimed to have come across the conversation by chance and said the act was intended to address the coworker’s misconduct and protect a healthy working environment and the children at the facility.

Image depicting an affair. Getty Images Bank.

However, the court rejected A’s claim, noting that A had opened the chat window, checked its contents, filmed them, and shared the footage. The court said that “the contents of KakaoTalk conversations fall within the victim’s private life,” and found no evidence that the conversation had affected the victim’s work conduct or childcare.

Regarding the defamation charge, the court also found that the requirement of publicity was met because the information was passed on to other employees, even though A had initially told only one coworker. The court said the act could not be considered to have been in the public interest, taking into account, among other things, that A had not reported the victim to the head of the institution or a relevant association.

The court added that it had taken into consideration that A regretted the invasion of the victim’s privacy and had no significant criminal record since receiving a fine 15 years ago.

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