A Korean appellate court has upheld and slightly increased the state’s liability for damages after police officers photographed a woman in the nude during a prostitution raid and shared the image in an internal group chat. Here are the key points.

—

Background

– In March 2022, A was working at a prostitution establishment when police conducted a raid. During the operation, officers photographed A in a state of undress. The image was then shared in a group chat used by the enforcement team.
– A filed a ₩50 million damages claim against the state in September 2023, arguing that the photography and sharing of the image violated her right to privacy, sexual autonomy, and informational self-determination, and that the enforcement operation had also failed to follow due process — including failure to present a warrant.
– The National Human Rights Commission of Korea had already found in July 2023 that the police conduct constituted a human rights violation and recommended that the National Police Agency overhaul its regulations and guidelines for prostitution enforcement.

—

Court Decisions

– The trial court found the state liable, ordering payment of ₩8 million. It found that the photography and group chat sharing violated A’s personality rights, sexual autonomy, and right to informational self-determination.
– The court found no evidence that A had been physically resisting or attempting to destroy evidence at the time of photography, and that the situation did not require urgent photographic documentation. The nude state of the subject was not itself necessary to establish the criminal conduct at issue.
– The court found the officers had violated the principles of proportionality and prohibition of excess — means less harmful to A’s dignity were available and were not used. In particular, officers could have minimized exposure of sensitive body areas but did not.
– The sharing of the image in a group chat was separately criticized: the court found that the mere risk of the image being disseminated beyond the group constituted significant additional psychological harm to A.
– The trial court rejected A’s claims regarding failure to inform her of the right to counsel and alleged sexually humiliating remarks by officers.
– The Seoul Central District Court appellate division increased the award to ₩8.3 million on June 16, 2026, accepting some additional claims that had been denied at first instance.

—

Key Takeaways

– Police photography of a person in a state of undress during a raid is not automatically justified by the law enforcement context. Officers must demonstrate that the photography was necessary, proportionate, and that less intrusive alternatives were considered and rejected.
– The absence of resistance or evidence-destruction risk, combined with the fact that nudity was not an element of the offense being investigated, makes such photography difficult to defend as necessary.
– Sharing sensitive images — even within an internal enforcement team — creates independent liability where the subject faces a genuine risk of wider dissemination and suffers psychological harm as a result.
– State liability for police misconduct during enforcement operations extends to dignity and privacy violations, not just physical harm or procedural irregularities.

—

Why This Matters

This case sits at the intersection of law enforcement powers and constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. It confirms that Korean courts will scrutinize the necessity and proportionality of intrusive police conduct during raids — even when the underlying enforcement operation is lawful — and that internal sharing of sensitive imagery compounds rather than mitigates that liability. For police training and policy, the Human Rights Commission’s recommendation to overhaul enforcement guidelines reflects the broader systemic concern that this case exposed.

Article: https://m.imaeil.com/page/view/2026061616084824050