"No Witness to Cohabitation, Heard It from the 'My Little Old Boy' Writer": Park Soo-hong's Sister-in-Law's Excuses [Star Issue]

*This content was translated by AI.

The explanation by Lee, the sister-in-law of broadcaster Park Soo-hong, regarding her "KakaoTalk slander" that was brought to trial for spreading false information about Park Soo-hong and his wife and defaming them, was truly astonishing.

On the 23rd, the Criminal Appeals Division 1 of Seoul Western District Court held a sentencing hearing for Lee on charges of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (defamation), and sentenced her to a fine of 12 million won.

On that day, the court ruled: "Although Lee claimed that her KakaoTalk messages had no possibility of being disseminated, she specifically mentioned details related to the trial to acquaintances, and those acquaintances posted comments on articles regarding the embezzlement allegations raised by Park Soo-hong, leading to an investigation. Therefore, it is recognized that Lee's remarks possess public interest."

The court further stated: "Although Lee did not explicitly state that Park Soo-hong was cohabiting with a woman and claimed her remarks were not intentional, she said that even without meeting or witnessing the woman in question, simply mentioning that they bought an apartment together would be enough to 'give clues to acquaintances who would then dig it up on their own.' This statement is considered the publication of false facts and cannot be legally accepted."

Lee was indicted for transmitting messages containing false information, such as Park Soo-hong cohabiting with a woman during his broadcasting activities, in a KakaoTalk group chat with the intent to slander Park Soo-hong and his wife.

According to the Prosecution Service, Lee is suspected of spreading false information in a KakaoTalk group chat with the intent to slander Park Soo-hong. Investigation results revealed that statements such as "Park Soo-hong's words are lies" and "Park Soo-hong is cohabiting with a certain woman" were exchanged in the group chat, and it was also discovered that Lee, who was inside the group chat, posted these contents on online communities.

Subsequently, Seoul Western District Court's Criminal Single Judge No. 9, which served as the first-instance court, sentenced Lee to a fine of 12 million won at the sentencing hearing, recognizing charges of defamation and slander. During the closing arguments of that trial, the Prosecution Service requested a prison sentence of 10 months for Lee, stating: "She spread false information about a celebrity in a group chat, damaging their reputation. The crime is not minor. She denies the charges and shows no remorse. She has taken no measures to help the victim recover from the harm, and the victim also desires a severe punishment."

The court stated: "Although Lee had no direct knowledge of the facts, she frequently spoke as if she often witnessed 'whether there is always a woman' in the group chat and facilitated the transmission of this information. Even if Lee asked about truthful facts, the act itself cannot be considered to have a legitimate reason." The court continued: "Currently, with Park Soo-hong's older brother and Lee involved in a legal dispute that has drawn public attention, it appears they sought to create public opinion favorable to themselves, leading to this situation. It is evident that their intent to slander Park Soo-hong was strong. They transmitted the content of slandering Park Soo-hong directly into the chat room and executed measures to spread it further by writing comments on internet articles. Given Park Soo-hong's profession, the degree of defamation is significant, and false information can be disseminated through the internet, causing substantial harm. Yet, Lee only presents her own situation and that of her family, offering unconvincing excuses and making no effort to seek forgiveness from the victim." The court cited these points as reasons for her poor character.

Regarding Lee's slander via the group chat claiming Park Soo-hong was cohabiting with a woman, the court clarified: "There is no fact that Lee directly witnessed a woman estimated to be Park Soo-hong's cohabitant when he appeared on 'My Little Old Boy,' and the alleged place of sighting appears to have been a parking lot rather than inside his home. The claim that there were women's items in Park Soo-hong's house is also, even if true, something that could easily exist between parties in a romantic relationship."

Prior to this, during witness examination, Lee emphasized that she learned of the cohabitation fact from Kim, a writer of 'My Little Old Boy,' stating: "Kim casually said to me and my mother in the waiting room, 'Does your brother still have friends at his house?' I was convinced someone was there because I saw evidence when I went with my mother and heard stories from my father. My mother and father frequently made such remarks (about cohabitation), so I believed it as well."

Lee's lawyer stated: "Although Lee was acquitted of the embezzlement charges in the first trial, she was already branded as someone who embezzled over 10 billion won based on content posted by the victim on social media at the end of March 2021, much earlier. Even now, Park Soo-hong refers to the defendant as the main culprit of embezzlement in broadcasts and other media. Despite submitting evidence and the Mapo Police Station's decision not to prosecute, she has been targeted as the mastermind behind the defamation by the late Kim Yong-ho and mentioned on terrestrial broadcasts with content differing from the facts, enduring pain for over three years despite court rulings and the police's non-prosecution decision." The lawyer added: "Regarding the cohabitation fact, statements from the victim and a fact-confirmation letter from the victim's spouse were submitted as strong evidence; however, these are either irrelevant to proving criminal facts or differ from objective facts and contradict common human experience, making their credibility significantly low. In contrast, Lee stated to witnesses that she believed it was true based on what she personally witnessed and stories heard from her parents-in-law with whom she shared a thick trust relationship over nearly 20 years. She has substantial reasons for holding this belief." The lawyer argued solely for Lee's innocence.

In the subsequent second trial, the Prosecution Service requested that the court reject the defendant's appeal and sentence her to 10 months in prison, the same as the original request.

Lee's lawyer again denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The lawyer stated: "It is difficult to see the prosecutor's indictment as proven beyond reasonable doubt." He argued: "The defendant witnessed women's items at the victim's home on multiple occasions and had substantial reason to believe the victim was living with a woman based on this." He continued: "Regarding the victim publicizing family property issues through the media, the defendant attempted to explain her and her family's grievance and correct the factual relationship. The main motive was not slander but explanation. It was strongly characterized as a defensive response."

However, in her final statement, Lee said: "Although this was an extremely personal conversation with acquaintances, I apologize for hurting Park Soo-hong and Kim Da-ye through this conversation. I am ashamed that my words and actions were not wise and were rash." She added: "I realized how foolish and shameful my actions were. I deeply reflect on this and will ensure such things do not happen again. I will become a mother who is not a source of shame to her children."

Earlier, during the closing arguments of the first trial, Lee shed tears saying: "As an ordinary housewife, I married and lived with my children and parents-in-law for 20 years. However, due to a single comment, I was branded as someone who embezzled 11.6 billion won, and criticism toward my children continued. As a result, my daughter suffered mental shock and is undergoing psychiatric treatment and psychological counseling." She continued: "Nevertheless, the case against us is still ongoing. It has been very difficult, but we are trying to endure and overcome it," repeatedly requesting leniency.

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.