The brother-in-law of soccer player Hwang Ui-jo 31, Norwich City has been put on trial. It is a charge of distributing and threatening Hwang Ui-jo’s illegal filming.

The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office announced on the 8th that it arrested Hwang Ui-jo’s brother-in-law A on charges of filming and distributing cameras under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act and threatening retaliation under the Specific Crime Aggravated Punishment Act.

A is accused of posting photos and videos of Hwang Ui-jo and other women on social media in June, claiming that he was Hwang Ui-jo’s ex-lover, and claiming that Hwang Ui-jo had a relationship with a number of women and caused damage.

Hwang Ui-jo filed a complaint with the police against A on charges of violating and threatening the Information and Communication Network Act when such articles and videos spread. 토토사이트

He claimed that after his mobile phone was stolen in November last year, he received threatening messages from A, saying, “I will distribute photos” and “It will be fun if it is released.”

In response, A is also accused of threatening by sending a threatening message. In a police investigation, A was found to be a real brother who served as Hwang Ui-jo’s manager.

The police arrested A and arrested him, and sent the case to the prosecution on the 22nd of last month.

The prosecution conducted a supplementary investigation by investigating the people involved in the case and checking their mobile phones, accounts, and phone details to confirm that A distributed Hwang’s personal video, demanded cancellation of the complaint, and threatened him.

The prosecution said, “We do not disclose specific criminal charges to prevent secondary damage,” and explained, “We also requested the Seoul Digital Sexual Crime Safety Support Center to delete the distributed video to prevent secondary damage.”

Apart from this case, Hwang Ui-jo is under police investigation for illegally filming sex partners filming using cameras under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act.

He claims it was filmed by agreement with the other party, but the victim refuted that he never agreed to film the video.