Cyber Sex Crimes Targeting Children and Adolescents in South Korea: Incidents and Legal Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is important in as much as it addresses digital sex crimes involving children in a country with advanced digital infrastructure (South Korea).  It also draws attention to the growing issue of sex crimes in the metaverse.

However, the methods are not specified and it is not clear why some data is selected over and above others.  For example, (line 135 onwards) a case from the Czech Republic is selected to evidence that digital child sex crimes are not specific to South Korea.  It would have been better to draw on international data here, for example, from NCMEC and/or Interpol.

Parts of the paper are not referenced at all.  For example the section on grooming, about which there is a substantial international literature and for which various models have been proposed.  What is the source of the model presented - as far as I can see it is not specific to South Korea - how was it developed?

The UK case should also be referenced (see for example The Guardian, Euronews or Daily Mail).

Finally, I am concerned that the UK Online Safety Act is presented uncritically.   Whilst it has support there have also been criticisms, especially around the issue of encryption - tasking platforms to remove content they cannot see is currently an insurmountable problem.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presented the assessment treats a pertinent subject matter, no doubt.

In what concerns the introduction, it begins with a necessary contextualization about the digital industry and the use of the internet at South Korea. However, I miss some references to support some claims made (as is the case for example, the phrase "The high uses rate of smart devices among 37 the younger population leads to active social interactions in the digital space, but these 38 interactions are not always positive."). In addition, despite the presentation of fundamental concepts being made clearly (e.g. cybercrime, online fraud), I miss a rational of liaison between the different paragraphs of the introduction. Finally, I believe that the last paragraph of this section should be the first to emerge in chapter 2 of the manuscript, even if this implied some reorganization in the information.

In the start of the second capitulum, the permeability between online and offline contexts is addressed, but the idea is not exploited enough. Online crimes can impact the context ofline: okay, but how? That should be well explained. Moreover, this information - as important as it is - comes completely incontextualized.

Still in chapter 2, 3 categories of digital sex crimes are presented. In this context, examples are presented for each, making reading more interesting. Notwithstanding, it is equally missing for each of them their definition, ensuring that it is clear to the reader what category it holds. Additionally, I once again miss references to future studies to sustain various statements (e.g. "Online grooming can be divided 155 into three distinct stages. (...)") and some rational within the categories themselves. Very pertinent information is presented, however, all blends in and without large connection elements between the themes throughout the text.

The third chapter presents, in a clear and organized manner, the status of legal norms to both UK and South Korea level, exploring in this latter case the existing limitations. The information is well exploited and the writing is appealing, making this reading a pleasant experience for the reader.

From my perspective, the chapter of the conclusion should begin with a short summary of the biggest conclusions behind presented, contextualizing this way the reflections that arise below. Notwithstanding, it starts with a decontextualized phrase and that you don't even have a connection to the phrase that follows you...

In general, my review points to a manuscript full of relevant information but that organizes this information in a poor and disconnected way. For this reason, I believe you need a deep review and restructuring. A lot of mentions of studies or previous documents are equally missing, such as references supporting statements made throughout the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf