Lawyer from Major Law Firm Acquitted of Wife's 'Headlock' Assault Charge... Court Cites "Lack of Evidence"

"Argument Over Puppy Adoption Issue"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A lawyer affiliated with a major law firm who was prosecuted on charges of assaulting his wife during the divorce process was acquitted.

According to the legal community on the 13th, Judge Bang Hyemi of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 recently acquitted lawyer A (41, male), who was charged with assault causing injury.

Previously, lawyer A was prosecuted on charges of assault after allegedly attacking his wife B (39) in the early morning of February 26, 2020, at an apartment in Seoul, angered by B’s decision to give away their dog without his consent.

In court, lawyer A denied the charges, stating, "I only broke through a locked passage door by bumping into it to protest, but I did not assault her at all." On the other hand, B testified that "For about 10 minutes, my husband put me in a so-called 'headlock' and dragged me around. I searched for my phone and called my sister to ask for help."

In his final statement, lawyer A said, "The incident started because I protested the disappearance of the dog, but B claimed that I hit her. The process of being isolated afterward was very difficult," and appealed, "B is piecing together inconsistent statements as she goes."

The court acquitted lawyer A. Judge Bang stated, "Based solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude that the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

She added, "It is questionable whether the victim could have made a phone call while in a headlock," and "Excluding the time it took for the defendant to go upstairs, realize the dog was missing, break the door, and argue, it does not appear there was enough time for such an assault lasting about 10 minutes."

Although bruises and wounds were confirmed in photos submitted by B, the medical institution’s inquiry concluded that it was difficult to determine that they occurred on the day of the incident, which also supported this judgment.

Judge Bang added, "The victim was discussing divorce with the defendant around the time of the incident," and "It cannot be ruled out that the victim called 112 to evict the defendant from the house by using the fact that he was drunk and broke the door to protest."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.