A woman in her 30s received a prison sentence after falsely accusing her biological father of rape due to his refusal to provide her with financial assistance, despite his previous support for her international education.
Based on information from the legal sector on the 1st, the Criminal Division 1 of the Namyangju Branch of the Uijeongbu District Court, led by Presiding Judge Choi Chi-bong, imposed a 10-month prison term on a woman identified as A. The charges encompassed defamation, business obstruction, and insult.
돈을 주지 않는다는 이유로 유학 생활까지 뒷바라지했던 친아버지를 성폭행범으로 몬 30대 딸이 실형을 선고받았다. 본 기사와 무관한 이미지. [사진=픽사베이@Engin_Akyurt]
A faced trial for defaming her father, B, by posting 11 comments on an online forum between May and June last year. She titled these posts "I am a victim of familial sexual violence. Please look at this."
In these statements, A falsely alleged, "I have been subjected to continuous sexual abuse by my biological father since the age of four, and my mother also endured domestic and sexual violence," "We settled the matter with 30 million won in damages," and "Severe punishment is warranted."
During this process, A disclosed B's real name and business details, reportedly causing operational challenges for his business.
A is additionally charged with making six posts alleging that B remarried a woman, C, who was supposedly his mistress.
In February 2021, A initiated a damage suit for sexual assault against B in the Incheon District Court but did not produce evidence of any unlawful conduct.
During the criminal proceedings, A maintained the truthfulness of her statements, yet the court rejected her assertions, referencing the lawsuit's outcome. The court highlighted the absence of specific evidence or circumstances indicating habitual sexual assault by B.
Moreover, the court considered A's claims baseless, noting that she had benefited from B's financial support during her overseas studies and upon returning home. The rape accusations emerged shortly after she demanded a substantial sum for a café venture, which B declined.
The court stressed, "The defendant spread false information about the victims due to dissatisfaction with the denial of financial support. The reputations of those harmed cannot be entirely restored."
The court elaborated on the sentencing rationale, noting, "Given the elevated risk of recidivism as the defendant continues to publish similar content post-crime, and the victims' strong demand for severe punishment, these considerations were thoroughly evaluated."