Ex-KH Group vice chairman sentenced to 4 years for threatening former girlfriend with weapon

Cho Gyeong-sik, former vice chairman of KH Group, has been sentenced to prison for threatening his former girlfriend with a weapon, injuring her and confining her against her will.

The 14th Criminal Division of Suwon District Court, presided over by Judge Yun Seong-yeol, sentenced Cho on Tuesday to four years in prison on charges of aggravated assault, aggravated unlawful entry into a residence, aggravated extortion, aggravated unlawful confinement and violations of the Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes. His existing bail was revoked, and Cho was taken into custody in the courtroom that day.

Cho was indicted on charges of threatening and assaulting his former girlfriend, identified only as A, with a weapon in a parking lot in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, at around 9:50 p.m. on Feb. 15, injuring her in the process.

He also faces charges of forcing his way into A's home the same night, confining her for about seven hours until 6 a.m. the following morning, and coercing her at knifepoint into obtaining a cash advance of 8 million won ($5,220), of which 6 million won was transferred to his own bank account.

Cho is also accused of stalking A on 13 separate occasions — waiting for her in parking lots and repeatedly calling her — despite having signed a handwritten pledge promising never to approach her again.

Throughout the trial, Cho denied all charges. He argued that he had only struck A with his palm and had not caused injury with a weapon, and that because they had been in a relationship, there had been no explicit prohibition on entry, meaning the charges of unlawful entry and confinement did not apply. He further claimed that the money he received was repayment of a debt A owed him and therefore did not constitute extortion, and that his repeated contact was a legitimate effort to resolve a financial dispute rather than stalking.

The court rejected those arguments, ruling that displaying a weapon while committing assault constituted aggravated assault regardless of whether it was used to stab the victim directly, and that even if debt collection had been the purpose, his conduct exceeded what is socially permissible.