A case involving a 13-year-old who was allegedly sexually abused by a private tutor in his 20s has drawn renewed controversy after the man identified as the home-camera tutoring suspect posted a rebuttal online.
On April 24, a post titled “I am home-cam tutor Park (surname withheld)” appeared on a Naver blog.
Park wrote that he had tried to respond only through the courts, but said the level of private retaliation had escalated. He claimed that staying silent in the face of what he called one-sided falsehoods and criticism was harming him, his family and acquaintances, and the reputation of his school.
He also said he recently learned the victim’s mother had opened a personal donation account. Park alleged that “false information” was being used to solicit money and said that was why he was writing the post himself.
Park said the mother’s public claims were “full of falsehoods,” and denied the sexual assault allegations. He asserted that, contrary to the victim’s account, there was not forced molestation but “physical contact by mutual consent.” He also claimed home-camera footage had been edited and spread in a way that led to misinterpretations.
Park further alleged the victim’s family had previously attempted financial settlements in a similar way, and again pointed to the opening of a donation account after the incident.
He said online posts and some media coverage had led to excessive criticism, doxxing and other secondary harm. Park claimed that personal information and addresses for his family were exposed, and that his girlfriend and her family were also identified, leading to stalking.
He also alleged he was followed and threatened by broadcasting staff, was fired from a part-time job, and that his parents’ store was being attacked. Park said he had avoided responding out of concern it could affect the trial, but said it had become difficult to endure.
The blog post reflects only Park’s claims and has not been confirmed by investigators or the courts. The facts of the case require separate verification through publicly disclosed evidence and trial outcomes.
The post triggered heated debate in the blog’s comments. As of 7 a.m. on April 27, it had 334 likes and 286 comments.
Some commenters said the information released by the victim’s side alone made it hard to understand the full context and urged caution, noting that only parts of the home-camera video had been made public.
Others said video evidence and a first-trial ruling already exist, arguing Park’s claims were unconvincing. They also said that in a case involving a minor, describing the conduct as “consensual” was itself inappropriate, and warned that criticizing the victim’s side could amount to secondary victimization.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.