This case was somewhat unusual. At issue were messages exchanged in an emotional dispute during an online game. The defendant was indicted for Obscene Acts via Telecommunications under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes for sending a juvenile opponent profanity containing fairly explicit language. The Prosecution sought punishment on the theory that the defendant's messages were intended to cause the victim sexual humiliation. The defendant countered that the language was a simple expression of anger with no sexual purpose, and the case proceeded to trial.

In this case I framed the central issue clearly: whether or not there was a 'sexual purpose.' Although the words the defendant used were crude, there was no circumstance or context suggesting they were sent for sexual gratification, and the victim and the defendant were connected only through the game. I emphasized that Supreme Court precedent demands a very strict standard of proof for 'sexual purpose,' and argued persuasively that the mere use of sexual language does not automatically make conduct subject to criminal punishment. I also analyzed the specific wording of the messages and their surrounding context to show that they were closer to a simple outburst of emotion, and highlighted that there was no personal relationship or interaction with the victim whatsoever. The court ultimately found it difficult to conclude that any sexual purpose existed and acquitted the defendant.