Sentenced to 6 Months Imprisonment in Both First Instance and Appeal Trial
A man in his 50s who threatened the family of a celebrity with a recording containing unverified private information about the celebrity in order to meet the celebrity was sentenced to prison again in the appellate court.
On the 12th, the Criminal Appeals Division 1 of Cheongju District Court (Chief Judge Kim Seong-sik) announced that it had sentenced Mr. A (55), who was tried on charges of intimidation, to six months in prison, the same as the original sentence.
Mr. A is accused of recording a one-sided claim made by an acquaintance in March 2020 that "there was some kind of relationship with celebrity B," and then, about a year later in April 2021, sending a USB containing the recording and his business card to a business operated by celebrity B's family to threaten them.
Afterwards, Mr. A sent threatening messages to B's family saying, "Have you listened to the content? I want to conduct an unofficial interview." He also reportedly repeatedly demanded face-to-face meetings with celebrity B, saying, "I have contacted many times, but there is no response."
The first trial court judged that Mr. A's actions constituted a crime of intimidation by exerting pressure as if he would harm B using the recording if his demands were not met. The first trial court sentenced him to six months in prison, stating, "Although the defendant was not forgiven by the victim, the sentence was determined considering that he admitted his responsibility."
Mr. A appealed, claiming the sentence was too harsh, but the appellate court did not accept this.
The appellate court pointed out, "Considering that Mr. A recorded the one-sided claims of his acquaintance, it is difficult to see this as an impulsive crime," and added, "The recorded content is something that would cause tremendous anger even to an ordinary person." It further explained the sentencing rationale, saying, "Considering that the victim is a celebrity known to the public, the psychological pressure and fear felt by the victim and their family were likely greater," and "The sentence was determined taking into account that the defendant was not forgiven by the victim."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
