A woman in her thirties has been sentenced to a prison term after accusing her biological father of rape due to his refusal to provide financial support. The father had previously funded her overseas education.

The legal community reported on the 1st that the Namyangju Branch of the Uijeongbu District Court's Criminal Division 1, under Presiding Judge Choi Chi-bong, sentenced the woman, referred to as A, to a 10-month prison term. Charges included defamation, business obstruction, and insult.

A woman in her 30s was sentenced to prison for accusing her father, who had financially supported her studies, of being a rapist. (Image unrelated to the article) [Photo=Pixabay@Engin_Akyurt]

A was tried for making 11 posts on an online forum between May and June of the previous year, titled "I am a victim of familial sexual violence. Please look at this," thereby defaming her father, B.

In these posts, A claimed falsely that she had been sexually abused by her father since she was four and that her mother also suffered domestic and sexual violence. She mentioned a settlement of 30 million won in damages and called for severe punishment.

A disclosed B's personal and business information, reportedly causing operational difficulties for his business.

Furthermore, A made six online posts alleging that B remarried a woman, C, with whom he had an affair.

In February 2021, A initiated a lawsuit against B for damages related to sexual assault at the Incheon District Court but could not substantiate any illegal actions.

During the criminal trial, A maintained the truthfulness of her claims, but the court dismissed her assertions based on the lawsuit's findings. The court stated there was no concrete evidence or circumstances supporting A's allegations of habitual sexual assault by B.

Additionally, the court found A's accusations to be false, considering the financial support B provided during her studies and after her return. A made the rape allegations soon after B refused her request for a significant sum to open a café.

The court highlighted that A disseminated false information due to dissatisfaction over financial denial, resulting in irreparable reputational damage to the victims.

The court elaborated on the sentencing, noting the high risk of recurrence as A continued similar postings post-crime. The victims' strong desire for severe punishment against A was also factored into the decision.