Prosecutors Ultimately Arrest Hwang Ui-jo

Footballer Hwang Ui-jo’s brother-in-law was eventually put on trial in custody.

On the 8th, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office Director Jang Hye-young arrested and indicted Hwang Ui-jo’s wife on charges of filming and distributing cameras under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, and threatening retaliation under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act. A is known to have served as Hwang Ui-jo’s manager by traveling with Hwang Ui-jo’s brother on overseas business trips and supporting him.

On June 25 this year, he revealed his personal life on social networking services SNS, claiming that he is Hwang Ui-jo’s lover. He is suspected of posting photos and videos of Hwang and other women along with his personal life. He is also accused of threatening Hwang by sending a message to the effect that he would distribute the photos.

The day after the post was posted, Hwang Ui-jo filed a complaint with the police against the writer of the disclosure on charges of violating the Information and Communication Network Act timely defamation of false information and threatening. When the fact became known, A sent an e-mail saying, “If you don’t drop the complaint by June 30th, we will release all your privacy.” In addition, it was revealed that he threatened the victim by sending a photo of the captured privacy video through SNS messages.

When Hwang found out that the threat was his sister-in-law, he filed a non-penalty petition. As a result, the charges of defamation and intimidation under the Information and Communications Network Act, which Hwang initially stated in his complaint, were not sent. The two charges are the “unpunishment of objection” that the victim cannot be punished if he or she does not want to be punished. However, prosecutors additionally considered threatening retaliation under the Specific Crime Aggravated Punishment Act, rather than the crime of non-penalty, for the crime that the man threatened when he demanded Hwang to cancel the complaint.

During the prosecution’s investigation, he reportedly denied the allegations, saying that he had been hacked. However, the prosecution judged that he threatened the person by distributing his personal video after investigating the person involved, digital forensics on mobile phones, and analyzing letters and accounts. 안전놀이터