Key Summary
Under Korean law, if you are investigated in Korea over sexual deepfake material, preserve the source image, editing or generation history, output files, account history, and any sharing record rather…
On this page
- What does Korean law focus on in this situation? Article 14-2 of the Sexual Crimes Punishment Act regulates sexually humiliating fabricated or edited images made against the depicted person’s will. Since the 2024 amendments, the statute also separately covers possession, purchase, storage, or viewing of covered fabricated material, so the date and type of conduct matter.
- What should you do before a police interview or report? Do not delete project folders, prompts, source files, output images, accounts, or browsing history merely because they are embarrassing. First record the dates of creation and sharing, who supplied the source image, what tool was used, whether the output was saved, and whether it was sent or posted. If you experimented with multiple files, do not collapse them into one general admission; identify which specific outputs police are asking about.
- What evidence should be preserved? A deepfake file has a production chain, and that chain can matter more than the final screenshot alone.
- Which facts can change the legal analysis? Because technology can create many intermediate files, the investigation should identify conduct file by file and date by date. 1. What was created or edited? A face swap, synthetic nude, altered video, or nonsexual edit should not be described as the same thing without checking the file. 2. Was the depicted person identifiable? Recognition can depend on face, name, account context, or surrounding information. 3. What was the purpose and workflow? Prompts, project history, and surrounding messages may be relevant to intent and knowledge. 4. Was any output distributed? Private storage and later uploading or messaging should be separated factually. 5. When did each act occur? Statutory amendments make the exact date important in rapidly changing deepfake law.
- What will police compare with your statement? AI and editing tools may keep generation history on a local device or on a service account. Some outputs may be temporary, cached, or automatically synchronized. A forensic review should therefore avoid assuming that every file in a cache was intentionally saved or distributed, while also avoiding unsupported claims that “the AI made it automatically” if the project history shows deliberate steps.
- What should a foreigner check about interpretation and the Korean statement? For a sexual-deepfake investigation, interpretation should preserve the difference between the alleged acts and the time of knowledge. In particular, check language about creation, possession or viewing, and distribution of fabricated sexual material so the Korean record does not turn access, viewing, creation, sending, or later discovery into the same event.
- Can this affect a visa or immigration status? A foreign suspect in a sexual-deepfake investigation may also need immigration advice, but police contact alone does not produce one automatic visa result. Immigration consequences should be reviewed after the alleged conduct, likely disposition, status, and prior record are understood, separately from creation, possession or viewing, and distribution of fabricated sexual material.
- What can a Korean criminal lawyer add? A lawyer can match each file and act to the law in force on the relevant date, distinguish creation from possession or distribution, and prepare the interview so technical terms such as generation, editing, caching, saving, and uploading are not treated as interchangeable.
- FAQ Q. Does deleting a deepfake before police contact make the conduct irrelevant? A. No. Deletion does not erase the historical conduct, and forensic or account records may remain. Do not create further deletion issues once an investigation is foreseeable.
Under Korean law, if you are investigated in Korea over sexual deepfake material, preserve the source image, editing or generation history, output files, account history, and any sharing record rather than deleting the project. Article 14-2 of the Sexual Crimes Punishment Act now covers a broader range of fabricated sexual-image conduct, including certain possession, storage, purchase, and viewing acts.
In a sexual-deepfake investigation, keep the human timeline separate from the technical record. Police may ask about relationships or conversations, but they may also test those answers against source images, generation or editing history, output files, prompts or project records, account logs, and sharing history; prepare both tracks before the interview.
What does Korean law focus on in this situation? Article 14-2 of the Sexual Crimes Punishment Act regulates sexually humiliating fabricated or edited images made against the depicted person’s will. Since the 2024 amendments, the statute also separately covers possession, purchase, storage, or viewing of covered fabricated material, so the date and type of conduct matter.
Deepfake investigations may examine creation, editing, possession, storage, distribution, or other handling of fabricated sexual material, depending on the conduct and the version of the statute applicable at the time. Police may focus on the source photograph, prompt or editing workflow, software or model used, output files, upload history, and whether the depicted person can be identified. Because the law in this area has changed rapidly, the exact date of conduct matters.
What should you do before a police interview or report? Do not delete project folders, prompts, source files, output images, accounts, or browsing history merely because they are embarrassing. First record the dates of creation and sharing, who supplied the source image, what tool was used, whether the output was saved, and whether it was sent or posted. If you experimented with multiple files, do not collapse them into one general admission; identify which specific outputs police are asking about.
For counsel review in a sexual-deepfake investigation, label devices, accounts, and copied files by owner and date. The working file should never obscure which record is the original source or how a backup, cache, forwarded copy, or platform export was created.
What evidence should be preserved? A deepfake file has a production chain, and that chain can matter more than the final screenshot alone.
| Item | Why it matters | How to preserve it |
|---|---|---|
| - | - | - |
| Source images | Shows where the face or body image came from and what was originally depicted | Preserve original files with filenames and metadata. |
| Project files or prompts | May show the editing workflow, model instructions, and sequence of creation | Keep project folders, prompt logs, or generation history unchanged where available. |
| Output files | Identifies which fabricated images or videos actually existed | Preserve originals and distinguish drafts from final outputs. |
| Upload or messaging history | Shows whether and where a file left the device | Export platform history, post URLs, and relevant chats. |
| Account/payment records for tools | Can confirm which service or account was used and when | Save subscription receipts, login history, and account identifiers. |
Which facts can change the legal analysis? Because technology can create many intermediate files, the investigation should identify conduct file by file and date by date. 1. What was created or edited? A face swap, synthetic nude, altered video, or nonsexual edit should not be described as the same thing without checking the file. 2. Was the depicted person identifiable? Recognition can depend on face, name, account context, or surrounding information. 3. What was the purpose and workflow? Prompts, project history, and surrounding messages may be relevant to intent and knowledge. 4. Was any output distributed? Private storage and later uploading or messaging should be separated factually. 5. When did each act occur? Statutory amendments make the exact date important in rapidly changing deepfake law.
What will police compare with your statement? AI and editing tools may keep generation history on a local device or on a service account. Some outputs may be temporary, cached, or automatically synchronized. A forensic review should therefore avoid assuming that every file in a cache was intentionally saved or distributed, while also avoiding unsupported claims that “the AI made it automatically” if the project history shows deliberate steps.
Expect investigators to compare your account with source images, generation or editing history, output files, prompts or project records, account logs, and sharing history. If you do not know how a device, platform, or account behaved, identify the point that needs verification instead of turning an assumption into a factual statement.
What should a foreigner check about interpretation and the Korean statement? For a sexual-deepfake investigation, interpretation should preserve the difference between the alleged acts and the time of knowledge. In particular, check language about creation, possession or viewing, and distribution of fabricated sexual material so the Korean record does not turn access, viewing, creation, sending, or later discovery into the same event.
Before signing the Korean statement in a sexual-deepfake investigation, verify who created or accessed the material, what tool was used, when each file was generated or viewed, and whether it was distributed. Distinguish facts you personally know from estimates, inferences, or information learned from someone else.
Can this affect a visa or immigration status? A foreign suspect in a sexual-deepfake investigation may also need immigration advice, but police contact alone does not produce one automatic visa result. Immigration consequences should be reviewed after the alleged conduct, likely disposition, status, and prior record are understood, separately from creation, possession or viewing, and distribution of fabricated sexual material.
What can a Korean criminal lawyer add? A lawyer can match each file and act to the law in force on the relevant date, distinguish creation from possession or distribution, and prepare the interview so technical terms such as generation, editing, caching, saving, and uploading are not treated as interchangeable.
FAQ Q. Does deleting a deepfake before police contact make the conduct irrelevant? A. No. Deletion does not erase the historical conduct, and forensic or account records may remain. Do not create further deletion issues once an investigation is foreseeable.
Q. Does every AI-generated image fall under the sexual deepfake provisions?
A. No. The exact content, identifiability, conduct, purpose, and applicable law must be reviewed. Do not label all AI edits as the same offense.
Q. Does every cached or temporary AI file prove intentional possession?
A. Not automatically. File path, application behavior, user actions, and the specific statutory act must be examined.
Q. What should I send before consultation?
A. Send the alleged deepfake files, source-image or generation history, device/account information, sharing record, police station, and interview date.
For a focused review, send the alleged deepfake files, source-image or generation history, device/account information, sharing record, police station, and interview date. Email the materials to dylee@newlawyer.co.kr. English and Chinese consultations are available. This content is general legal information and does not guarantee a particular result.
Already outside Korea and planning to return? If there's an unresolved criminal matter in Korea, it's worth reviewing your situation before you board your flight — a Provisional Retainer (가선임) puts a Korean criminal defense attorney on your case in advance, so counsel is already briefed and ready to respond if you're contacted by police after you arrive.
📧 dylee@newlawyer.co.kr https://koreacriminalattorney.com/en/before-entering-korea-criminal-lawyer
Related guides
Already outside Korea and planning to return?
Don't search for a lawyer after you're arrested at the airport. Have your Korean criminal defense attorney in place before you fly.
Pre-Entry Risk Review →Legal Consultation
Need advice about this issue?
Attorney Doyun Lee, a KBA-certified criminal law specialist, reviews criminal matters directly. Remote representation is available nationwide in Korea.