Hello, this is attorney Lee Young-kyung at Cheongchul Law Firm.

Today we examine the Supreme Court ruling 2026Do541 (decided April 30, 2026). This case addresses whether newly enacted penal provisions on digital sex crimes — specifically the Sexual Violence Punishment Act prohibitions on possession of camera-captured images and deepfake images — can be applied to defendants who began possession before the law took effect, when that possession continued past the enforcement date. As continuing offenses, the ruling establishes a critical standard for criminal defense practice.

[Question]

If a defendant began possessing camera-captured images or deepfake images before the new penal provisions (Article 14(4) and Article 14-2(4) of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act) took effect, and continued to store them on a mobile device past the enforcement date, can the post-enforcement possession be punished under the new law? Is a separate “act of maintaining or strengthening control” required after enforcement, distinct from the initial act of beginning possession?

[Answer]

The Supreme Court ruled that (1) possession of camera-captured images and deepfake images constitutes a continuing offense, (2) where the execution of a continuing offense began before the new penal provisions and continued without termination, the new law applies to post-enforcement possession, and (3) no separate act of maintaining or strengthening control is required after enforcement. Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower court’s acquittal on the post-enforcement portion for misapprehension of law, and remanded the entire judgment to the Gwangju High Court.

1. Charges

a. Possession of Camera-Captured Images (Sexual Violence Punishment Act)

Starting at 22:34 on December 14, 2014, at the defendant’s residence and other locations, the defendant joined unidentified Telegram groups or channels and saved to a mobile phone a file (“14081194****.mp4”) depicting an unidentified woman nude with legs spread, captured without consent for distribution. From that point until May 15, 2020, the defendant similarly stored a total of 113 such images, and possessed them until approximately December 16, 2024.

b. Possession of Deepfake Images (Sexual Violence Punishment Act)

On approximately May 5, 2019, at the defendant’s residence and other locations, the defendant created a composite file combining the face of a female classmate from a university department with a photograph of an unidentified woman with bared chest, and stored it on a mobile phone. From that point until approximately December 21, 2020, the defendant similarly created and stored a total of 195 deepfake images, and possessed them until approximately December 16, 2024.

2. Issues and Applicable Law

The central issues were: (1) whether the new law applies where possession that began before enforcement continued past the enforcement date, and (2) whether a separate act of maintaining or strengthening control was required after enforcement.

■ Possession of Camera-Captured Images
Sexual Violence Punishment Act Article 14(4), newly enacted by Act No. 17264 on May 19, 2020
– Punishes any person who possesses, purchases, stores, or views camera-captured images or copies thereof.

■ Possession of Deepfake Images
Sexual Violence Punishment Act Article 14-2(4), newly enacted by Act No. 20459 on October 16, 2024
– Punishes any person who possesses, purchases, stores, or views deepfake images or edited images thereof.

3. Lower Court’s Ruling – Acquittal

The lower court (Gwangju High Court (Jeju) 2025No71) held that after the initial act of beginning possession, a separate act distinct from that initial act, performed to maintain or strengthen control over the images, is required to find a renewal of intent and a new act of possession distinct from the prior conduct. On that premise, the court acquitted on all charges on the ground that proof of such separate post-enforcement acts was insufficient.

4. Supreme Court’s Ruling – Reversal and Remand

a. Applicable Legal Principles

(1) Possession of camera-captured images and deepfake images is a continuing offense

The Supreme Court held that “possession” means placing camera-captured images or deepfake images under one’s control and maintaining that control. Accordingly, these offenses are continuing offenses evaluated as a single crime from the moment possession begins until the control relationship terminates (citing Supreme Court 2022Do15319, decided March 16, 2023, and Supreme Court 2022Do6278, decided June 29, 2023).

(2) Temporal Scope of New Penal Provisions

(1) (Principle) Where conduct that was previously not criminal becomes punishable through the creation of new elements of a continuing offense, the new penal provisions cannot be applied to conduct preceding their enforcement.

(2) (Exception) However, where the execution of a continuing offense began before enforcement and continued without termination, the new law applies to post-enforcement conduct.

(3) (Whether a separate act is required) After enforcement, no separate act distinct from the initial act of beginning possession is required to maintain or strengthen control over the camera-captured images or deepfake images.

b. Application to the Case

(1) Pre-Enforcement Portion – Acquittal Affirmed

- Camera-captured images: possession up to approximately May 18, 2020, before the enforcement date of May 19, 2020.

- Deepfake images: possession up to approximately October 15, 2024, before the enforcement date of October 16, 2024.

→ These cannot be punished under the new law, so the lower court’s acquittal on this portion was correct.

(2) Post-Enforcement Portion – Misapprehension of Law by Lower Court

- Camera-captured images: possession from approximately May 19, 2020, to the termination of possession on approximately December 16, 2024.

- Deepfake images: possession from approximately October 16, 2024, to approximately December 16, 2024.

→ Since the control relationship continued, the new penal provisions apply without requiring any separate act. The lower court’s acquittal on this portion was a misapprehension of the law on the elements of these possession offenses.

c. Conclusion – Full Reversal and Remand

The Supreme Court reversed the acquittal portion and, because that portion stood in a concurrent crime or single crime relationship under Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the portion the lower court had found guilty, reversed the entire judgment and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court.

5. Practical Implications – Impact on Digital Sex Crime Defense

The Supreme Court 2026Do541 ruling is significant in clarifying the temporal scope of newly enacted penal provisions for continuing offenses such as possession crimes. As penal provisions in the digital sex crime field are rapidly enacted and strengthened, this ruling confirms that (1) possession conduct before enforcement cannot be punished under the new law due to the principle against retroactive punishment, but (2) if possession of the same files or copies simply continued past enforcement, the new law can be applied without any additional act. In defense practice, attorneys should (i) precisely identify the timing and duration of possession before and after enforcement, and (ii) carefully review whether the control relationship itself was severed (e.g., by deletion or destruction of devices) after enforcement, to dispute the scope of punishable conduct.

Cheongchul Law Firm provides optimal legal services to clients with deep experience and expertise in criminal cases. In matters involving digital sex crimes and disputes over the scope of continuing offense liability, we work to protect our clients’ rights through precise factual identification and rigorous legal analysis.