"I haven't seen this in 20 years," even prosecutors were taken aback... Nana's home ransacked, knowledge-seeker's question, and a bold lie to the police [Star Scene] [Comprehensive]

*This content was translated by AI.

The Prosecution Service expressed shock over the habitual criminal record of a man in his 30s, identified as A, who broke into the home of actress Nana (35, real name Lim Jin-ah), a former member of the group After School, and committed robbery.

On the afternoon of the 17th, a final hearing for the appeal of Mr. A's charges including robbery and injury was held at the Seoul High Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, before the 14-3 Criminal Division (Presiding Judge Jung Kyung-geun, Judges Lee Hyung-geun and Lee Hyun-woo).

On this day, the Prosecution Service requested the court to rule that "Considering Defendant A's extensive criminal record, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too lenient. We ask that the original verdict be overturned and Defendant A be sentenced to 10 years in prison. Given the confrontation between the defendant and the victim, as well as the extent of the victim's injuries, at least indirect intent for injury should have been recognized; however, the lower court's acquittal on this point contains errors in fact-finding and misinterpretation of legal principles." The first-instance court had previously sentenced A to seven years in prison.

The Prosecution Service pointed out that A's false claims had been exposed. "The defendant has asserted, continuing from the first-instance trial proceedings, that he never went to the victim (Nana and her mother) with a knife and that he was asked by Nana to be allowed to possess a knife in exchange for receiving 40 million won. However, the defendant has a criminal record for various offenses including online secondhand trading fraud, investment fraud, drunk driving, injury, and assault. He is currently facing a separate trial for insurance fraud disguised as a traffic accident. He also has a prior conviction for stealing high-end wine at a supermarket," it stated.

He also pointed out, "Although a prosecutor has met tens of thousands of criminals and many people over more than 20 years, it is rare to see someone like the defendant who committed such diverse crimes. I am mentioning the defendant's prior record because the defendant lacks a basic sense of lawfulness and does not know how to reflect on their own mistakes. I want to emphasize that the defendant is very skilled not only in passive lying but also in active fabrication of non-existent events. There were multiple instances of forgery of official documents, as well as fraud. Even when arrested red-handed at Nana's mother-and-daughter home, the defendant claimed they had not been informed of their right to remain silent by the police and filed a petition for review of detention based on false documents. However, during the subsequent investigation, upon learning that the scene of the police informing them of their right to remain silent was fully recorded, the defendant brushed it off by saying, 'I don't remember hearing it.' After being arrested, the defendant also posted questions on a portal site's knowledge platform, writing about the crimes they committed and asking what punishment they would receive."

He further stated, "The defendant also offered the implausible excuse that he and Nana had agreed on him bringing a knife with him. He also claimed that Nana hid her home camera, but it was confirmed that at the location he alleged, there was an air freshener, not a home camera. The dagger used by the defendant during the crime is in fact a product easily purchased anywhere. It was confirmed to be sold even at the mart where the defendant had previously engaged in thefts. However, the defendant claims this knife is a high-end item that could only be bought at department stores and was present in Nana's home. Yet, the defendant himself carried the knife with its sheath in a bag convenient for carrying such items and brought it to the scene. In conclusion, considering all these circumstances, the defendant's claims are entirely lacking credibility. Although it is clearly established that the robbery attempt failed and the victim was injured during the process, instead of showing remorse, he has filed a criminal complaint and continues to make false assertions. It can only be seen as continuing secondary victimization by exploiting the fact that the victim is a famous celebrity."

However, A's side expressed their sense of injustice despite the Prosecution Service's remarks. A's legal representative stated, "The defendant deeply and sincerely regrets having entered the victim's residence, causing mental harm and shock. Although the defendant did not carry a knife, they acknowledge that this incident was entirely their fault and feel sincere remorse toward the victim. However, the defendant consistently denies having entered with a kitchen knife, claiming it was merely an accidental theft based on a mistaken belief that the house was vacant. In fact, reviewing the victim's testimony reveals some inconsistencies. We hope the court will overturn the portion regarding entry with a knife. The crime should be classified as attempted robbery, and the current sentence is excessively severe. This was not a premeditated intrusion but an accidental entry into what was believed to be an empty house. Although injuries occurred upon encountering the victim, the criminal act itself remains an attempt. Given that the defendant deeply regrets and reflects on their wrongdoing, we respectfully request a more lenient sentence than the original ruling."

In his final statement, A said, "I worry that what I am saying may be contradictory. Nevertheless, in this last argument, with the mindset of clinging to even a rotten rope, I will speak. I am sorry to the two victims. All responsibility lies with me. If I had not held such wrong thoughts and taken such actions from the beginning, this would not have happened. Regardless of the reason, I am truly sorry," as he bowed his head.

However, A soon insisted again that the Prosecution Service's claim of falsehood was incorrect, stating, "But one cannot say I did something I did not do. I absolutely never carried a knife. It is logically impossible for our family, living in a rental housing unit worth 25 million won, to purchase an expensive knife sold only at department stores."

A said, "I was actually additionally indicted for false accusation. I reached a point where I had to bear everything simply because I am considered a criminal. I cried a lot. It is an unbearable weight to carry," he pleaded with tears.

He said, "I entered that house (Nana's or my own home) because I thought no one was there and made a judgment based on that. I absolutely had no intention of harming anyone or doing anything like that. I swear by my deceased ancestors. Please." After mentioning each judge's name one by one, he added, "As a defendant who committed a crime, I am well aware that asking for leniency regarding my actions is selfish, but with all my heart, I beg the presiding judge for mercy. Please show me leniency so that I may return to my mother's side and live a transformed life. Once again, I earnestly request that you grant me another chance by issuing a lenient sentence for this defendant. I am sorry. Thank you." Wiping away his tears, he then left the courtroom.

The appeal court ruling is scheduled for October 22.

Earlier, A was indicted on charges of attempting to rob Nana and her mother by breaking into Nana's home in Achon-dong, Guri-si, Gyeonggi-do, at around 5:38 a.m. on November 15 last year, brandishing a weapon and threatening them with it, only to be subdued by the mother and daughter.

As a result of the incident, Nana and her mother, Ms. B, sustained injuries requiring 33 days and 31 days of medical treatment, respectively. Mr. A also filed a complaint against Nana for attempted murder and special injury, claiming he was stabbed in the neck while being subdued. Subsequently, Nana's self-defense was recognized, leading to a decision not to prosecute, while the false accusation case filed by Nana's side was transferred to the Prosecution Service with an opinion favoring indictment.

The first-instance court ruled that Mr. A carried a weapon and entered the premises, sentencing him to seven years in prison. The court rejected all of Mr. A's arguments that he did not carry a weapon at the time of the crime and had no intent for robbery. However, the charge of robbery-inflicted injury against Nana's mother, Ms. B, was changed to robbery-causing injury, and she was found guilty.

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

*This content was translated by AI.