“A honeymoon with another woman?” ... Woman in her 30s exposes two-timing boyfriend at his workplace; fined 1 million won

[Financial News] A woman in her 30s who caused a disturbance at the home and workplace of her boyfriend after learning that he had married another woman, despite having promised to marry her, was sentenced to pay a fine.
News 1 reported on the 4th that Judge Park Gyeong-hwan of the Gwangju District Court's Criminal Division 7 fined 1 million won a 34-year-old woman, identified as A, who was indicted on charges including obstruction of business, defamation, and violating the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts, etc. (joint trespass into a residence).
A was brought to trial on charges including unlawfully entering B's home in November 2023 and causing a disturbance at his workplace while disclosing details of his private life.
The investigation found that A dated B from June to November of that year with marriage in mind. However, B had another woman whom he had promised to marry since 2019, and he married her in October 2023 while dating A. B concealed this and continued seeing A, also deceiving her family into thinking he would marry her.
After learning belatedly that B had married another woman and even gone on a honeymoon with her, A went to the apartment where B and his wife lived in November that year and rang their doorbell several times. Two days later, she went to B's workplace and mentioned both the fact that he had married another woman while dating her and the private lives of the two of them. In early December that year, A also called B's workplace and told an employee that B had married another woman while dating her, and asked for a wedding invitation.
The court said, “Even if there were grounds for her to feel betrayed and protest, it is not permissible to stay in a store for a long time for a purpose unrelated to legitimate business and disrupt its operations.” It also pointed out that “B concealed the fact that he was due to marry another woman while also dating the defendant.”
In explaining its sentencing decision, the court said, “It appears the defendant committed the offenses out of a sense of betrayal and as a form of protest. B also bears considerable responsibility for the offenses, and there are circumstances relating to the motive that warrant consideration.”
[email protected] Kim Su-yeon Reporter