On January 20, the Criminal Division 1 of the Uijeongbu District Court’s Namyangju Branch held the first trial for A, a 34-year-old man charged with attempted robbery causing injury. Prosecutors allege that A broke into Nana’s home in Acheondong, Guri City, Gyeonggi Province, at approximately 5:38 a.m. on November 15 last year, threatening Nana and her mother while demanding money before being overpowered.
According to the prosecution, Nana and her mother both sustained injuries from the incident, submitting medical certificates stating Nana suffered injuries requiring 33 days of treatment, while her mother required 31 days.
However, A’s legal team presented a sharply different version of events. While admitting to trespassing into Nana’s residence, the defense argued that the intent was simple theft rather than robbery and denied any use or possession of a weapon. They also denied allegations that A strangled Nana’s mother, claiming instead that A was assaulted unilaterally by Nana.
The defense further argued that Nana’s injuries were not defensive wounds inflicted by the defendant, but rather offensive injuries, and requested a forensic examination by the National Forensic Service to determine whether the weapon and its case—currently held as evidence—contain the defendant’s fingerprints.
A stated that he committed the act due to financial hardship after learning through online searches that Acheondong is home to many wealthy residents, including celebrities. He insisted he did not bring a weapon and denied choking Nana’s mother, claiming he only grabbed her by the shoulder to calm her down after she screamed and pushed him in panic.
According to A, the situation escalated when Nana suddenly ran out holding a weapon and began swinging it, leading to a physical struggle between them. He maintained that he was merely defending himself during the altercation and largely denied responsibility for the injuries sustained by Nana and her mother.
The defense also requested that the physician who issued Nana’s injury diagnosis be called as a witness to verify its validity. However, the court expressed reservations, noting that verbal testimony alone may not constitute objective evidence, and asked the defense to reconsider.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for March 10 at the same court, as the trial continues to draw public attention due to the serious nature of the allegations and the high-profile status of the victim.
Sources: Nate