Choi Jung-won threatened ex-lover with a weapon after breakup notice... Prosecutorial suspension of indictment

Choi Jung-won, formerly of the group UN, received a suspended prosecution disposition on charges of threatening an ex-lover with a weapon. He was cleared of charges related to threatening to distribute videos and stalking. On the 16th, the Women’s and Children’s Crime Investigation Division 2 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office issued this disposition regarding Choi Jung-won. The prosecution acknowledged the criminal facts of the charge of threatening with a weapon (special threat) but decided not to prosecute considering the motive and means of the crime, the relationship with the victim, and circumstances after the crime. It also reflected that the victim, Ms. A, filed a complaint with the police and then submitted a letter of withdrawal of prosecution a few days later, and requested leniency during the prosecution investigation stage. Choi Jung-won is accused of calling his ex-lover Ms. A four times in August last year after she notified him of their breakup, then visiting her residence with a weapon and threatening, ″I will kill you. I will distribute the video.″ Regarding this, Choi Jung-won explained, ″It was a personal dispute with my girlfriend that escalated into a misunderstanding,″ and denied, ″I never carried a weapon or threatened her. Both sides clearly deny it.″ The police transferred the case to the prosecution in November last year. Regarding the charge of threatening to distribute videos (threatening use of filmed material under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act), the prosecution decided not to indict due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution viewed that during the dispute, when Ms. A said, ″I will expose your private life to the media,″ Choi Jung-won reacted in anger momentarily, and also considered that distributing the video could harm Choi Jung-won himself, who is a celebrity. For the charge of violating the Stalking Punishment Act, the prosecution decided not to indict, noting that the two had been communicating normally until just before the incident and that there was no indication of refusal to contact. The prosecution requested supplementary investigations twice from the police and reconfirmed the victim’s testimony, concluding after conducting direct supplementary investigations.