After a six-day trial, a jury in Contra Costa County found 30-year-old Pleasant Hill resident Won Kwak guilty of aggravated possession of child pornography and destroying evidence.
The jury found that on November 24, 2020, Kwak knowingly possessed over 600 images of child sexual abuse material, depicting pre-pubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
The jury also found Kwak attempted to destroy evidence on his laptop computer when he deleted thousands of sexually explicit files as officers served a search warrant at his residence.
When officers knocked on the front door, Kwak looked through the blinds, saw the police officers, and then went to his computer and began deleting files of child pornography. Concord Detective Daren Billington, a digital forensics expert, was able to recover many of those files and demonstrate to the jury exactly what Kwak did to delete them.
Kwak’s sentencing is scheduled for January 7, 2022. Kwak faces a maximum penalty of five years in state prison.
Just 5 years?
Won the Dong awaits you.
Obviously this guy is a creep. My problem is having this garbage on your computer but not being involved in making it or paying for it or selling it is an iffy situation. What else on your computer will be a jailable offense in the future.
Your position is that viewing, using, owning, sharing child pornography is just “iffy”?
Having it on your computer makes you involved in it, whether you personally made it or passed it along or not.
No demand, no supply.
It’s not difficult to NOT have CP on your computer.
I said nothing about sharing. Do you own something that is on your computer. Not sure of that. My objection would be merely having something on your computer is iffy. I didn’t see any other charge other than having it on his computer. If he just downloaded it from the net than they should go after who put it on line. Not the dumb slob that downloaded it.
Concernicus
Your interpretation of involved in it is iffy. My thing is not to defend perverts but to defend downloading anything. If someone downloads or uploads whatever it is called, anything to the net that is illegal go after them not the dumb guy that looks at it.. That’s taking the easy way out. Beside that it doesn’t get it off line.
Sooooo you’re defending a pedophile. Got it.
Chris Hayes
Seems your reading skills are not that great Chris. I will go a little farther. Right now he is a creep but not a pedopihle. He may be but that is not what is reported.
This is really disgusting. However, anybody can download anything to your computer without you even knowing it. It’s called a “Driveby Download” and it can happen when you click on a link that takes you to a site that downloads the files in the background. One can be “setup” to appear guilty of downloading and possessing child pornography.
This individual implicated himself and proved he knew he had broken the law when he didn’t answer the police at his door and began deleting the files. He obviously knew where they were stored on his computer and that it was illegal to possess them. Disgusting. But, I’d like to see the people actually producing this stuff put away for life. They are harming innocent children aside from the fact that they’re sick dirtbags.
and if this were say a controlled substance like heroin, methamphetamine or cocaine?
The person didn’t make it, didn’t share it, or even sell it. All you need do is possess it.
You might argue the person didn’t know. Okay, 600 saved photos (not cache memory but saved to a drive – a conscious and deliberate act) some “depicting pre-pubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct” were found. The others will be nudes. Having been in California Law Enforcement for 30 years and been involved in these investigations, that is code for even a person too stupid to get off jury duty could not confuse the fact these pictures contained images of grade school children engaged in sexually explicit acts.
You trying to tell me Ricardoh that people, even with an IQ of a house plant, cannot tell the difference between an 8 year old and an 18 year old?
If that were not enough, and Kwak truly believed the pictures were of consenting adults, why did he attempt to delete them? Those were his prized possessions. Like a serial killer, pedophiles use those pictures to relive their gratification. They trade them amongst themselves which is how the police probably found him in the first place. Someone rolled on him. Regardless of how the police located Kwak, it most certainly was not at random since they had a search warrant.
There is no way in hell he would have willing destroyed his saved pictures, his prized possessions. He knew exactly what he possessed, he know exactly why the police were knocking on his door and he know he did not want these pictures discovered. That is called “Conscious of Guilt”.
There is no doubt in my mind that if he had a computer, he was trading and sharing photographs. It’s like IV drugs uses sharing needles. It is a given.
pe·do·phile
/ˈpedəˌfīl/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who is sexually attracted to children.
I can’t think of another reason to have 600 photos of children, some in sexually explicit conduct. I guess it is the Burnie Ward defense?
“Driveby Downloads” I never even knew it happened!
This is sad….
Let’s all grab an ink cartridge and squeeze a couple drops onto our desks…one for me & one for my homies.
Downloading child pornography is illegal whether you like it or not. If there wasn’t a market for it, it wouldn’t exist. They can’t sell what people aren’t interested in looking at. They should go after both. If you can’t see that defending downloading something as sick as child pornography is wrong, there is nothing anyone can say to get through to you. You don’t get it.
I’ve never seen any evidence that supports the concept of drive-by downloads. Nevertheless, I’ll qualify my response by saying anyone who knowingly and intentionally possesses child pornography is a criminal and should be severely punished.
Janus
My point is a law against having something on your computer is not a good idea. What you do with it is a different matter. I am not defending a pervert. Seems a number of you think I am wrong but I am not. Sorry you don’t get it.
Well while eating an early lunch or a late breakfast reading the CC Times this morning I see Kwak was not arrested for having this porn on his computer but for trying to sell it. So the story changes.
A law against having something ILLEGAL on your computer IS a good idea. And child pornography is illegal. You own the computer, you don’t own the content.
You can’t illegally download music either. And that’s a lot less threatening than child pornography.
There are a lot of examples, but you’re absolutely clueless when it comes to technology. You shouldn’t be using a computer.
Ricardoh
What exactly is the difference between possessing a physical photograph and possessing a digital photograph? Can you not view both?
When a digital photograph is viewed on a computer, tablet, digital photo frame, smart phone or smart watch is the digital image not then a physical photograph just like one printed on paper? You can view it, touch it, share it or destroy it just as if it were print on paper.
Is a digital photograph not easily converted into a physical photograph and physical photograph into a digital photograph?
If Kwak possessed a physical photograph album with those 600 pictures would it be a crime in your mind or should the police only go after the makers and distributors child porn? Leave the end consumer’s alone since it is not “their” fault.
If Kwak was spying for some hostile government and he possessed the most holy of holy secrets of the US nuclear defense but it was only stored on his computer digitally and not on paper should he be prosecuted? Mine you he did not steal it. He just possess it.
If I use a digital camera to take photographs up your significant other or your daughter’s dress and I send them to a 3rd party should the 3rd party be allow keep those pictures? Should the government write a warrant and seize them? If the government seizes them under what authority since by your standards they are digital, the 3rd party is only possessing them and they are on the 3rd party’s computer and “Law against having something on your computer is not a good idea”.
FYI – the podophile who gets off looking at child porn is just as guilty as the person who makes it, shares it, or sells it. They are all cut from the same cloth and are morally bankrupt. I would no more allow the maker of child porn to babysit my children then I would a person who “only” masturbates to child porn.
Is Won Kwak his real name or his perv handle?
A 5 year sentence means he will spend maybe 24 months behind bars, minus time served. And then what? The recidivism rate for this kind of crime is close to 100%.
Knock knock. Who’s there? Won Kwak. Won Kwak who? And that’s as far as I got
@Ricardo Shilly Shally…..”Open the door it’s me…..”…https://youtu.be/ACfNSqsi_mE
So government is able to track down everyone who was at the Capitol (false flag), but cannot track the Digital Footprint of those who are uploading this crap?
Good to know.
It’s not the same thing to try and track CP (Why do you think there are entire teams of Feds on this stuff? And there’s a LOT more pedos than there are people to track/find them) as it is to look up someone’s facebook and find them proudly committing a felony with their equally proud friends.
Corn Pop was a bad dude.
Damn straight he was, especially with his chain and rusty blade…but he also had a soft silly side where he’d be in the pool and liked to rub the hair up & down on the Big Guy’s leg.
Does the term “Aggravated Possession Of Child Pornography” refer to how much of it he was in possession of?
Just seems like a sort of weird designation unless it is for some sort of bar that is set for prosecution.
According to the internet, it seems to either deal with the additional extent of potentcy or quantity of either drugs or child porn. So the prosecutor can say that this kind of possession is extra bad and get them a harsher sentence.
@jprcards – Yes, California and some other states charge aggravated possession for possession of 100 images or more.
I also read somewhere that an aggravated charge is grounds for deportation if the person is not a US citizen.
I mean the guy is a creep so throw the book at him.
I get the obstruction of justice angle, especially given the context of doing it in response to an imminent search; but, technically, aren’t you supposed to destroy child porn?
It seems like criminally charging someone for destroying (or attempting to destroy) something deemed too vile to be permitted to exist is a bit hypocritical. Especially since they still have him on the possession charge.
IANAL, but it’s all about the timing, right? Once the warrant is served, it’s evidence and it’s illegal to destroy evidence.
@anonymous
That is fair, and maybe it’s even completely valid; but, it’s still kinda bizarre to think that there is an explicit state interest in a random citizen safeguarding child pornography, to the point that his attempt to destroy child pornography is a criminal act.
The argument I would make in favor of it being illegal to have this stuff on your computer is this:
Those who seek it out are creating the market for it. Thus if there’s a market, there’s going to be people feeding it.
I have no problem with attacking the problem at both ends.
@ greg
A borderline decent argument. And in the case of those who made their own, then there’s a much more severe set of charges there.
However, what about the case of those who don’t pay for it? I’d have to imagine that people pirate that stuff.
ALL other kinds of videos get pirated. And then the companies who had their digital offerings freely shared will say that this is financially harmful to them.
Read the CC Times. He was arrested for selling it. The way our government is going you do not want to be arrested for something on your computer. You have no idea what will be illegal next. That is a long slippery slope. If you don’t agree with me look at China.
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet.
Robert Charles Winthrop.
You will know what is illegal because law in the US is codified. Every year new laws are posted for all to see. If man is not controlled you get the Lord of the flies, anarchy which is still control just without representation.
@Janus
The mere presence of a manner of control (either private morality or some extent of government) is one thing, excesses of control is another. You are simply starting an argument for control. Ricardo’s point was as to the limit of that control.
Also the idea that people can know ALL of what is illegal in the US is a farce. Do you have any idea how many laws America has? Not a retorical question. I’m not even asking if you know what they all are, just if you know how many there are.
@ Bob Kazamakis
Perhaps there are too many laws but I will ask again: Should possession of Child porn be illegal or legal? If, like Ricardoh, you believe there is nothing illegal about possession of Child porn than stop reading right now.
If the answer is yes, it should be illegal, then whether you have a hard copy or a digital copy is immaterial. You either possess it or you do not.
You can not possess something illegal and then claim olly olly oxen free simply because it is on your computer and not in your pocket. A computer is simply an extension of your “..papers, and effects..” under the 4th Amendment.
If you carefully read what Ricardoh wrote you will see what he is really saying is possession of child porn should not be a crime or prosecuted.
“My problem is having this garbage on your computer but not being involved in making it or paying for it or selling it ..”
“If he just downloaded it from the net than they should go after who put it on line. Not the dumb slob that downloaded it.”
“..anything to the net that is illegal go after them not the dumb guy that looks at it.”
All this China stuff and Government overreach is just smoke and mirrors. He doesn’t believe Kwak should be prosecuted for possession child porn which is the reason why he will not address the questions in my last post.
Ricardoh says that he is not defending Kwak but he most certainly is. When Chris Hayes called Kwak a pedophile what was Ricardoh response? “Right now he is a creep but not a podophile (sic)” and his belief possession should not be a crime sure sounds like a defense.
It has been my professional experience of 30 years in Law Enforcement that people who keep, sell, trade, make, or give away child porn are sexual attracted to children which is the definition of the word Pedophile.