Man who broke into Nana’s home appeals seven year prison sentence for robbery with injury conviction

A man who broke into the home of singer and actress Nana has filed an appeal after being sentenced to seven years in prison for robbery with bodily injury.

According to Star News, the defendant (referred to as A) personally submitted an appeal on June 10, challenging the ruling handed down just one day earlier. 

On June 9, the First Criminal Division of the Namyangju Branch of the Uijeongbu District Court sentenced A to seven years in prison on charges of robbery with bodily injury. The prosecution had previously sought a 10-year sentence, arguing that the crime was serious in nature, showed no genuine remorse, and that no settlement had been reached with the victims.

During the sentencing, the court stated that A’s actions constituted a violent robbery-related offense, finding that he had illegally entered Nana’s residence at night while carrying a weapon. The court also accepted that the defendant had possessed a knife at the time of the incident, citing consistent and detailed statements from the victims as well as surrounding circumstances, including online posts made by the defendant after the crime. The court interpreted these as supporting the conclusion that the weapon was carried with potential intent for use in a dangerous manner.

The court further addressed the physical confrontation that occurred during the incident. While A claimed he was injured during the struggle with Nana and her mother, the court ruled that their actions amounted to self-defense. It also stated that even if injuries had occurred in the course of the struggle, they did not constitute unlawful assault on the part of the victims.

In its reasoning, the court emphasized the seriousness of the crime, noting that the defendant had invaded a home that should be protected as a place of absolute safety during nighttime hours and had engaged in conduct involving threats with a weapon. It added that the psychological and physical harm suffered by the victims, the lack of settlement, and the defendant’s prior criminal history all weighed in favor of a custodial sentence. At the same time, the court considered mitigating factors, including the fact that the crime did not fully succeed, the circumstances surrounding the injuries, and the assessment that there was no clear intent to use the weapon lethally.

The incident occurred on November 15, 2025, when A allegedly entered Nana’s residence in Guri, Gyeonggi Province, and threatened her and her mother with a knife while attempting to commit robbery. Nana and her mother reportedly managed to subdue the intruder after a physical struggle and subsequently handed him over to the police.

Following the incident, A filed a counter-complaint alleging attempted murder and assault against Nana and her mother, claiming he had been injured during the confrontation. However, police dismissed the allegations, recognizing the actions of Nana and her mother as legitimate self-defense. In response, Nana filed a counter-complaint accusing A of making false accusations.

During questioning, A denied bringing a knife into the house and claimed that he panicked after encountering Nana’s mother. He also stated that he was physically restrained during the incident and sustained injuries, adding that he had entered the home due to personal financial difficulties and family circumstances. While he admitted partial wrongdoing, he disputed allegations that he used violence or attempted strangulation.

The case has drawn significant public attention, partly due to Nana’s statements during court proceedings, where she described experiencing lasting psychological trauma after the incident. She later expressed anger and frustration through social media and fan communication platforms, stating that facing the defendant in court was emotionally overwhelming and that she believed the legal process should hold the perpetrator fully accountable.

With A now formally appealing the seven-year sentence, the case will proceed to the appellate court for further review.