Yap was sentenced to 30 years in prison and 24 strokes of the cane, as he was assessed to remain a danger to society with his high risk of re-offending and the aggravating nature of his crimes.

Yap typically, through the Internet, looked for boys who lived or who went to school near his rental apartment in New Upper Changi Road, and later in Yishun.

[6] When the boys protested, Yap promised he would delete the footage, but saved these videos to his laptop to re-watch and masturbate to.

One of these crimes took place on 4 February 2010, where in Hougang Swimming Complex, a 13-year-old boy was told to remove his school uniform in a toilet cubicle, where Yap sodomised him and filmed the act.

On 25 September 2011, a 14-year-old boy was told to perform oral sex on Yap in a toilet cubicle in the Tampines Stadium.

Another case, which took place on an unspecified date, involved another boy whom Yap met and chatted with for a few months on Facebook before their first physical meeting in a mall.

In the beginning of the trial, Yap pleaded guilty to 12 counts of sexual penetration with a minor and agreed to have 64 other charges to be taken into consideration during sentencing.

[11] Bharat Saluja, a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), went to court and released a diagnosis report that Yap was suffering from hebephilia, a type of sexual preference for early adolescent children between 11 and 14 years of age.

Tommy Tan, the defence's psychiatrist, agreed with Saluja's assessment that Yap had hebephilia and had a high propensity to reoffend.

[12] The prosecution sought a sentence of at least 30 years' imprisonment and the legal maximum of 24 strokes of the cane for Yap, describing him as a "clear and present danger to society".

[13][14] Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) David Khoo argued that Yap's offences had shown a "high degree" of premeditation and through his exploitation of the Internet, he had clearly targeted a vulnerable group of victims, with whom he carried out the sexual acts unprotected in all cases.

For these above factors, along with the difficulty to detect crimes against children, Khoo asked for Yap to be severely punished under the law.

He cited that Yap was a first-time offender and with his credentials, he poses as a promising young man and could contribute to society as a useful and productive individual.

[22] In his judgement, Justice Woo Bih Li said that Yap's offences were "particularly heinous", and he also cited that other than deterrence, the punishment meted out should also reflect the sentencing principle of “retribution” and the degree of emotional and psychological harm he had caused to his victims.

In Woo's words, he pointed out that Yap's guilty plea "did not spring from genuine remorse, but from a realisation that his goose was as good as cooked.

"[23] The judge also said that the other aggravating circumstances were the high premeditation displayed by Yap and his using the Internet to lure and befriend his victims, earning their trust and breaching it while satisfying his deviant sexual urges.

The filming of these acts by Yap also gave risk to the possibility of the videos falling into the hands of third parties and being circulated.

Furthermore, despite being in his early thirties, Yap still possessed boyish looks, and his youthful appearance had made it harder for people to believe that he was the one who had terrorized Singapore through his sexually perverse acts, adding to the sensationalism of the case.

[26] According to Singapore's national daily newspaper The Straits Times, Yap was one of the top ten people who made headlines nationwide in the year 2015.