9-dan Cho Hye-yeon Denies Charges in First Trial of Stalking Man

[Asia Economy Reporter Yoo Hyun-seok] A(48), who was arrested and indicted for stalking professional Go player Cho Hye-yeon 9-dan for one year, denied the stalking charges at the first trial.

At the first hearing held on the 14th under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Division 13 of the Seoul Northern District Court (Presiding Judge Heo Kyung-ho), A's side stated, "We only admit to the property damage charge for writing 'I love you' on the building's exterior wall last year."

In May, the prosecution indicted A on charges including violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (retaliatory threats, etc.), trespassing, defamation, and property damage.

According to the prosecution, A is accused of persistently stalking Cho by causing disturbances at the Go academy she runs for over a year since April last year, writing messages expressing love and profanity on the academy's exterior walls, and threatening her after she reported him.

Cho 9-dan, the stalking victim, appeared as a witness at the trial. She testified, "Since April last year, he repeatedly came to the academy and scribbled bizarre words on the academy's exterior walls. From April 7 this year, the harassment worsened; he even came inside the academy, shouted at me, and threatened, saying 'I will kill you.'"

She added, "The fear was beyond imagination, and I reported to the police several times. The academy is just a one-minute walk from the police station, and when the defendant came back to the academy, the police arrived and caught him. If they had been late, I cannot even imagine what could have happened."

Meanwhile, during cross-examination, A's defense attorney asked, "The defendant claims to be in a romantic relationship with the witness. What is your relationship with the defendant?" The court intervened, saying, "The witness repeatedly testifies that she does not know the defendant at all. What is the purpose of this questioning?"

A requested a jury trial following the previous preparatory hearing, but the court did not accept the request.