A female individual in her thirties was penalized with a prison term after wrongfully accusing her father of sexual assault due to financial disputes, despite his previous financial support for her overseas education.
Based on reports from the judicial sector dated the 1st, the Criminal Division 1 of the Namyangju Branch at the Uijeongbu District Court, under the adjudication of Judge Choi Chi-bong, delivered a sentence of 10 months' incarceration to a woman identified as A. The charges included defamation, business interference, and insult.
A 30-year-old woman received a custodial sentence for falsely accusing her father, who supported her during her studies abroad, of being a rapist when he refused financial assistance. Image unrelated to the article. [Image credit: Pixabay@Engin_Akyurt]
A was prosecuted for disseminating defamatory content on an online community 11 times between May and June of the previous year, under the headline "I Am a Victim of Familial Sexual Violence. Please Look at This," implicating her biological father, B.
Her accusations included fictitious claims such as, "I have been a victim of sexual assault by my biological father since age four, and my mother also endured domestic and sexual violence," "The issue was resolved with compensation of 30 million won," and "Stringent punishment is imperative."
Throughout her online activity, A disclosed B's identity and business details, reportedly causing operational challenges for B's enterprise.
Moreover, A accused B of remarrying a woman, C, who was allegedly involved in an extramarital affair with him, through six additional online postings.
In an attempt to substantiate her allegations, A initiated a damages lawsuit pertaining to sexual assault against B in February 2021 at the Incheon District Court; however, she failed to provide substantiating evidence.
During criminal proceedings, A maintained the veracity of her allegations, but the court dismissed her assertions, referencing the lawsuit's outcome, and noting the absence of concrete evidence or habitual misconduct by B.
The court determined A's allegations were unsubstantiated, given her financial dependency on B during and after her studies abroad, and highlighted the timing of the rape claim following B's refusal to finance a cafe venture for her.
The judiciary stated, "A disseminated falsehoods about the victims due to dissatisfaction over financial denial. The reputational harm inflicted on the victims is irreparable."
In deliberating the sentence, the court acknowledged, "The elevated risk of recidivism, evidenced by her persistence in posting such content post-crime, and the victims' insistence on severe punitive measures against the defendant, were key considerations."