The internal reactions of KTX employees have emerged regarding the release of CCTV footage of the recently controversial KTX fall accident involving Park Wi.
On the 25th, the YouTube channel “Lee Jinho, the Backstage Director of Entertainment” released a video titled “‘Identifying the public service worker is a crime’: The mystery behind obtaining Park Wi’s CCTV footage… the real reason a practicing lawyer issued a warning.”
Appearing in the video was attorney Lee Seung-jae, who discussed whether there could be legal issues surrounding the release of CCTV footage of Park Wi’s KTX accident. During the discussion, Lee Jinho said, “We received a lot of tips from people who worked at KTX. Park Wi had ridden KTX more than 300 times and received a great deal of help from the employees. There had never been any problems before, so they felt sorry that he only uploaded footage of this particular incident,” drawing attention.
Attorney Lee said, “Under the Personal Information Protection Act, a person involved in an incident can view the footage without police being present. However, because the law is complicated, managers will generally tell people to report the matter to the police. In principle, though, viewing the footage is permitted. However, taking a copy of the footage should, in principle, be requested in writing with a specific purpose stated. Since the identities of third parties must not be revealed, measures such as blurring or masking are normally required.”
He continued, “If the footage was subsequently used for a purpose different from the one originally specified, that could become an issue. Although the public service worker’s face was blurred, people who worked there could potentially identify him, so there appears to be a possibility that this could constitute a violation.”
The attorney also said, “Since it is a public corporation, I assume the footage was obtained according to its regulations. While it is possible to disclose information about oneself, there could be liability for releasing it in a way that makes the identity of the public service worker identifiable.”
He added, “If it was disclosed without consent, the penalty can be up to five years in prison, although in practice it would generally result in a fine. In a recent case, a fine of around 2 million won was imposed. Courts also take privacy protection seriously. If the footage was used for a purpose other than the one for which it was obtained, there is a possibility of punishment.”
When asked whether releasing the footage under Park Wi’s stated “public interest” purpose could eliminate its illegality, the attorney replied, “There have recently been cases in which courts determined that the illegality was not excused when journalists disclosed personal information while claiming to be acting in the public interest. If someone was punished even when the information was disclosed through the media, it would be even more difficult to justify uploading it to a personal channel.”
Meanwhile, controversy has continued since YouTuber Park Wi released CCTV footage of his fall while getting off a KTX train. The backlash has continued to grow, including a decline in his YouTube subscriber count and the cancellation of scheduled speaking engagements.
[...]

This is the best // It's warm // Ridiculous // I'm upset // I'm mad
source: here
1. [+1,40, -43]
Park Wi, you should be apologizing properly
2. [+1,321, -14]
He's a mess... He considers his rights a "given"... but any mistake made against him leads to a public execution??? Turns out, he's the one getting publicly executed tsk tsk
3. [+1,276, -15]
They’re calling him "Chernobyl Park" on YouTube because he got 30 X-rays in a single day (t/n: Park Wi took 30 X-rays after the incident to find if something "broke" during the incident) ã…‹ã…‹ã…‹ã…‹ã…‹ã…‹ã…‹ã…‹ã…‹
4. [+151, -0]
I was appalled to see him taking 30 X-rays... He's clearly just desperate to find something to nitpick on good grief
5. [+151, -0]
It was truly bizarre to see him making the staff stand there like they were being punished while confronting a superior. Why go to such lengths?
0 Comments