Woman sentenced to 10 months for false claims against Park Si-hoo

A woman was sentenced to 10 months in prison by the Seoul Eastern District Court on the 22nd for theft, defamation, and violating the Personal Information Protection Act. The defendant, identified as "A," posted false social media claims that actor Park Si-hoo caused a marriage to collapse, though she has appealed the decision.

The allegations surrounding actor Park Si-hoo regarding his involvement in the breakdown of a marriage have reached a new turning point following a court ruling. A woman who posted on social media claiming that Park Si-hoo caused a family to collapse by introducing a woman to a former husband has been sentenced to 10 months in prison on charges of theft, defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Park Seong-bae, an attorney at Hyemyeong Law Firm representing Park Si-hoo, stated in an official position released on the 29th that the Seoul Eastern District Court found the defendant, identified as "A," guilty of theft, defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act on the 22nd, sentencing her to 10 months in prison. The ruling is notable as the court recognized the defamation charges in a criminal trial concerning the online allegations. However, A has appealed the decision.

The case arose when A posted claims on social media alleging that Park Si-hoo was involved in the breakdown of a marriage by introducing a woman to a former husband, B. Park Si-hoo filed a complaint against A for defamation and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, asserting the claims were false. B also filed a complaint against A, and the case was transferred to prosecutors after the relevant charges were recognized.

The charges against A revealed during the investigation and trial were not limited to the social media posts. A was also brought to trial for the theft of B's mobile phone and passport. The court found A guilty of theft, defamation, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act. Park Si-hoo's side emphasized that the ruling is significant because it recognizes the defamation involving the spread of false information claiming he caused a family to collapse by introducing a woman to B.

In determining the sentence, the court specifically noted several aggravating factors. These included the defendant's attitude during the theft investigation, the use of her profession to commit defamation and violate the Personal Information Protection Act, and the gravity of the consequences of the crimes. It was also noted as an unfavorable factor that A had a prior record of being fined for defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act, had not been forgiven by the victims, and that the victims had petitioned for severe punishment.

However, the court also considered certain mitigating factors, including some of the circumstances regarding the defendant's children related to the motive for the theft, the fact that she had no prior criminal record exceeding a fine, and her statements admitting to all crimes and expressing remorse. As a result, she was sentenced to 10 months in prison. Park Si-hoo's side explained that while defamation cases often result in fines, this ruling reflects the severity of spreading false information, as theft, defamation, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act were all recognized.

The damage suffered by Park Si-hoo was also highlighted in the statement. Attorney Park claimed that as the false posts spread through social media, Park Si-hoo had to suspend his external activities for a considerable period. Even with the release of a film he had completed approaching, he faced restrictions in broadcasting and entertainment activities, causing significant disruption to his overall career as an actor, including appearances in films and dramas. It was added that this also affected industry professionals, such as film production staff.

Online controversies involving the reputation of celebrities can take a long time to resolve facts and recover damages compared to the speed at which posts spread. In particular, if unverified claims are repeatedly distributed, it can affect not only the social reputation of the party involved but also economic interests, such as the release of works and acting activities. Park Si-hoo's side stated they hope this ruling will partially alleviate the damage caused by the distribution of false information.

Separate from the criminal trial, the issue of damages remains. Park Si-hoo's side is proceeding with a civil lawsuit for damages against A and has completed provisional attachment measures on A's property in preparation for compulsory execution following a future judgment. Provisional attachment is a procedure to preserve assets for execution if a monetary judgment is later issued, and the liability for and amount of damages will be determined through separate civil proceedings.

This criminal ruling is significant in that the court found A guilty of theft, defamation, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act among the allegations surrounding Park Si-hoo. However, as A has appealed, the final conclusion of the criminal case must be monitored through the higher court proceedings. The civil lawsuit is also still ongoing. Attention is focused on whether Park Si-hoo, who has been embroiled in controversy for a long time, can use this ruling as an opportunity to restore his reputation and resume his activities.

Read the original (Korean)