A person who rented a room in a straight in Singapore noticed that her things had been moved while she was at job.  ,
The 29-year-old Malaysian installed a closed-circuit television (CCTV ) and watched horrified as her flatmate trespassed into her room and committed lewd acts on February 19.  ,
Nguyen Van Hao, a Taiwanese man who shared a room with his wife in the same level, committed the functions after about 16 minutes.  ,
Nguyen admitted insulting the victim’s modesty and was given a 10-week sentence on Thursday ( Mar 27 ), with another count of trespass being taken into account for his sentencing.  ,
Due to a joke attempt, the victim’s identity may be revealed.
Even though she was the sole occupant in the room, the victim had known from the beginning of the year that things in her room may get moved from their initial positions while she was at work.  ,
The girl installed a surveillance camera in her room on February 16, 2025 because she was nervous.  ,
Three days after she left for work, she received an apps alert informing her that action had been detected in her room.  ,
She observed Nguyen on the live supply. He entered the room at around 8o’clock without permission, the court was told, wanting to taste the woman’s underwear. He was aware that she had left the door to her place unlocked.  ,
Nguyen performed a number of obscene acts while he was in the room, leaving the room again in between for a few moments.  ,
He removed his shirt and put on the victim’s underwear during the functions. Additionally, he used a contraceptive and performed a sexual act with the victim’s plush toys for a few minutes.  ,
After he finished, Nguyen removed the defendant’s underwear, changed the apparel back to their original positions, and then cleaned the bed.  ,
The victim “felt really distraught” after seeing the live camera supply of the accused’s infidelity in the victim’s bedroom, according to Deputy Public Prosecutor Dhiraj G Chainani.  ,
She was frightened by the thought of having the accused remain in the apartment while they remained co-tenants.  ,
She even worried and perplexed about having to find alternate housing and having to tell the apartment’s landlord about the accused’s infidelity.
The victim reported to the authorities that morning.  ,
Mr. Dhiraj argued that common punishment was the main factor in his case when he sought one to three months in jail for Nguyen.  ,
According to Mr. Dhiraj,” The accused’s offence was one that involved him performing sexual acts in the victim’s secret space.”  ,
He continued, “particularly high,” because he had trespassed into the defendant’s personal space.  ,
According to Mr. Dhiraj, his actions constitute a “gross infraction” of her protection.  ,
There would have been the danger that the victim would have continued to wear these underwear if she had watched the life camera feed and learned about the accused’s actions, according to Mr. Dhiraj, citing the same risk as she had taken with the victim’s plush toy, which she might have given it.  ,
Nguyen may have received a year in prison, a fine, or both for insulting the victim’s humility.