The South Korean YouTube community was shaken this week as the nation’s Supreme Court delivered a decisive verdict in a high-profile blackmail case involving some of its most recognizable online personalities. On March 12, 2026, the Supreme Court’s 2nd Division affirmed a three-year prison sentence for YouTuber 'Gujaeyeok' (real name Lee Junhee), who was found guilty of blackmailing another major YouTube figure, Jjuyang (real name Park Jeongwon), a star known for her food-eating or 'mukbang' videos and boasting an impressive 13.1 million subscribers as of this week, according to Yonhap News and multiple Korean media outlets.
The case centers on events that unfolded in February 2023, when Gujaeyeok, along with another YouTuber, 'Jujak Gambalsa' (Jeon Gukjin), approached Jjuyang with a chilling ultimatum. They claimed to have received reports alleging her involvement in tax evasion and other private matters. Their threat was blunt: pay them 55 million KRW (about $41,000 USD) or face public exposure of the allegations. This extortion attempt, as reported by KBS News and Maeil Business Newspaper, led to a drawn-out legal battle that would ultimately see several figures in the YouTube community brought before the courts.
After the blackmail attempt came to light, police launched an investigation, and Gujaeyeok was arrested and indicted in August 2024. During the ensuing trial, he was initially released on bail, but the gravity of the crime soon became apparent. In February 2025, the first trial found Gujaeyeok guilty of most charges, sentencing him to three years in prison and sending him back into custody. The second trial, held in September 2025, upheld this sentence, with the court stating, "He exploited the victim’s weaknesses and extorted money in exchange for not exposing her private life to the public, which is of poor character and involved a significant sum." The Supreme Court found no error in these rulings and confirmed the sentence this March, as reported by Hankyung and Kyunghyang Shinmun.
Gujaeyeok’s co-conspirators faced their own reckoning. Jujak Gambalsa received a one-year prison sentence with three years of probation, confirmed after he declined to appeal. Another YouTuber, Caracula (Lee Sewook), was convicted of aiding the blackmail and handed a one-year suspended sentence, also confirmed at the appellate level, according to Maeil Business Newspaper and Yonhap News. The courts were clear in their condemnation, emphasizing the seriousness of leveraging private information for financial gain in the digital age.
The web of defendants extended beyond the YouTube personalities. Attorney Choi, who had been involved under the guise of offering 'crisis management PR' services, was convicted of extorting 23.1 million KRW (about $17,000 USD) from Jjuyang. His punishment: a sentence of one year and six months in prison, suspended for two years, and 160 hours of community service. This sentence, too, was confirmed by the Supreme Court on March 12, 2026, after his initial two-year sentence was reduced on appeal, as reported by Hankyung and Kyunghyang Shinmun.
The fallout from the case did not end with criminal convictions. Jjuyang pursued civil damages against her tormentors. In October 2025, the court ordered Gujaeyeok to pay her 75 million KRW, with Jujak Gambalsa and Gujaeyeok jointly responsible for an additional 50 million KRW. According to Yonhap News, the second trial in this civil case is still ongoing, reflecting the protracted nature of legal redress in such high-profile disputes.
Gujaeyeok’s legal troubles, however, extend even further. In January 2026, he was sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined 15 million KRW for defamation, having made false statements about internet broadcasting hosts (BJs) on his channel between 2022 and 2024. This conviction is part of a pattern of problematic online behavior that has increasingly drawn the attention of authorities. The Kyunghyang Shinmun also noted that in a previous case, Gujaeyeok was fined 300,000 KRW for publicly discussing another YouTuber’s sexual offense record, underscoring a repeated disregard for privacy and responsible speech online.
Throughout the criminal proceedings, Gujaeyeok maintained his innocence regarding the blackmail charges. Speaking to reporters in July 2024, he insisted, "I did not blackmail or threaten Jjuyang. She gave me the money first, and she requested the amount to be set at 55 million KRW." Despite these claims, the courts found the evidence against him overwhelming and the pattern of coercion clear.
The verdicts have sent ripples through the South Korean online community. The case has sparked conversations about the responsibilities of influencers and the dangers of so-called 'cyber wreckers'—individuals who exploit the personal information of others for monetary gain or notoriety. Legal observers note that the severe penalties handed down reflect a growing intolerance for such behavior, particularly when it involves public figures with massive followings.
Jjuyang herself has largely stayed out of the limelight throughout the proceedings, focusing on her content and maintaining her vast subscriber base. Her popularity as a mukbang creator has only grown, despite the distress and reputational risk posed by the blackmail attempt. According to Maeil Business Newspaper, she remains one of the most influential figures in the South Korean digital entertainment landscape.
For their part, the convicted YouTubers and their supporters have argued that the sentences are harsh and that the boundaries between online commentary and criminal action are not always clear. Some point to the culture of exposés and rumor-mongering that permeates parts of the internet, suggesting that the case may have a chilling effect on investigative content. Others, however, welcome the verdict as a necessary check on the excesses of influencer culture and a warning to those who would use their platforms irresponsibly.
As the dust settles, the case stands as a landmark in the ongoing evolution of digital law enforcement in South Korea. It highlights the real-world consequences of online actions and the imperative for both creators and their audiences to navigate the internet with greater caution and respect. The Supreme Court’s decision, delivered with clarity and finality, signals that the era of unchecked online intimidation—at least in the eyes of the law—may be drawing to a close.