Choi Jong Bum's Lawyer Responds To Accusations Of Him Using "Revenge Porn" To Blackmail Goo Hara

Lawyer Kwak Jun Ho issued a statement on October 8 that responded to accusations that Choi Jong Bum used “revenge porn” against Goo Hara.

A report on October 4 stated that Goo Hara was blackmailed by Choi Jong Bum on the night of their fight when he told her that he would give a tip about her to the media outlet Dispatch. He sent clips to her from their sex tape, and Dispatch confirmed that he also contacted them to inform them that he had a tip about her. Goo Hara has sued Choi Jong Bum for coercion and blackmail, along with violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes.

Many people have described Choi Jong Bum’s actions as “revenge porn,” including an online petition that cites the case while calling for proper punishment and jail time for “revenge porn” criminals. The petition now has over 219,000 signatures.

In response, lawyer Kwak Jun Ho writes, “Revenge porn is pornography that has been released without a subject’s consent or awareness. It’s used as blackmail to force someone into committing another sexual act or to threaten them so that they cannot break off a relationship.”

“The video that Choi Jong Bum and Goo Hara filmed and simply stored is absolutely not revenge porn,” he stated. “It was not released and there were no attempts made to release it.” He went on to say that this will be clearly proven through the police’s analysis of the collected items and investigation.

Recently, Choi Jong Bum’s lawyer also came out with a statement that claimed that Goo Hara had been the one to suggest they film the video, and that Choi Jong Bum’s intent in showing her the clips had been only to send her “memories to cherish.” Goo Hara’s representatives responded by describing this statement as a “second act of harm” that sought to obscure the nature of the incident.

Kwak Jun Ho has now stated that Choi Jong Bum had only been replying to Goo Hara’s “continuous one-sided” claims using his “right of reply” (commonly known as the right to defend oneself from public criticism on the same site as its publication). He went on to say that Goo Hara’s representatives calling his response a “second act of harm” was an obstruction of his right of reply.

Source (1)