What BH Entertainment confirmed
Han Ji Min's agency has confirmed a link between two court cases that had been discussed separately in public. On 17 October, BH Entertainment stated that the person who left malicious comments about Han Ji Min is the same person who stalked JANNABI's Choi Jung Hoon, as reported by Soompi. The statement was short, but it resolved a question of identity that had surrounded the two proceedings.
The confirmation came a day after the sentencing in the Han Ji Min case and follows an earlier stalking case involving Choi Jung Hoon that concluded with a fine and a treatment order. Because the agency named the connection directly, readers no longer have to infer it from similar behaviour or from online commentary. That is the central development here: a factual link stated on the record, not a rumour given a wider platform.
The sentence in the Han Ji Min case
On 16 October, the Seoul Central District Court imposed a fine of 6 million won, approximately $4,495, on a woman in her thirties for criminal intimidation and defamation, according to the report. The charges related to 19 malicious posts targeting the actress on social media between September and October 2024.
Two features of that account stand out. The first is the volume: the case concerned 19 separate posts rather than a single message, spread across roughly two months. The second is the charge sheet as reported, which pairs intimidation with defamation. Both elements were accepted by the court in the sense that the sentence covered both, and the resulting penalty was financial.
The report does not set out the full reasoning behind the level of the fine, nor does it quote the defendant, so the judgment's internal logic remains outside the published account.
The earlier stalking case and its penalties
The same woman had previously been sentenced for stalking Choi Jung Hoon. According to the report, her conduct included visiting the building of his agency and leaving hundreds of comments on his blog that contained death threats, profanity and demands for private meetings. Those are specific behaviours attached to a specific charge, and they describe contact that went far beyond criticism of an artist's work.
In that case she was ordered to pay a fine of 5 million won, approximately $3,746, and to complete a treatment programme for stalking. The ruling was finalised in March, the report states. The treatment order is the element that distinguishes this outcome from the later case: it attaches a rehabilitative requirement to the financial penalty, rather than closing the matter with payment alone.
How the two timelines fit together
The sequence of dates is worth setting out plainly, because the two cases overlap in the reporting without being the same proceeding. The stalking case involving Choi Jung Hoon concluded with a ruling that was finalised in March. The posts at issue in the Han Ji Min case were made between September and October 2024. The Han Ji Min sentencing followed on 16 October, and the agency's confirmation of the identity link came on 17 October.
That ordering means the Han Ji Min proceedings did not begin the story. They followed an earlier case that had already been decided. The court in the Han Ji Min case heard evidence that established the connection, which is why the detail surfaced during the trial rather than being volunteered beforehand. For readers, the useful point is that the two judgments are separate legal events with separate penalties, linked by a confirmed identity that the actress's agency has now stated publicly.
Comparing the two penalties without overreading them
The financial penalties are close in size: 6 million won in the Han Ji Min case and 5 million won in the earlier stalking case, using the conversions given in the report. It would be easy to read that similarity as a comment on relative seriousness, but the report does not invite that conclusion. The charges differed, the conduct described differed, and the earlier case carried an additional treatment requirement.
What can be said is narrower. Two separate rulings produced two fines, and the earlier one also imposed a programme. The Han Ji Min case, as reported, covered online posts; the Choi Jung Hoon case covered both online comments and physical attendance at an agency building. Those are different categories of conduct, and the courts handled them in separate proceedings with separate outcomes.
Why the treatment order is significant
Court-ordered treatment programmes in stalking cases are intended to address behaviour rather than simply punish a single act, and the report notes that such an order was made in the Choi Jung Hoon case. That detail matters for understanding what the earlier ruling required of the defendant beyond payment.
The report does not describe the content of the programme, its duration, or whether it was completed. Those are gaps in the available account rather than conclusions about the case. What is documented is that the court attached the requirement to the sentence and that the ruling was finalised in March, which means the order formed part of a settled outcome rather than a proposal under appeal.
Why an agency statement carries weight here
Agencies issue statements about legal matters for a practical reason: a brief confirmed fact can prevent a vacuum from filling with speculation. In this instance, BH Entertainment's confirmation does specific work. It tells the public that the two cases involve one person, which is more informative than allowing audiences to assume a connection from the similarity of the behaviour described.
That is an interpretation of the agency's role rather than a claim about its motives, which the report does not address. The confirmed element is simply the identity link and the timing of the statement, one day after the sentencing. Readers can weigh how much that confirmation adds to their understanding without needing to know anything about the private lives of Han Ji Min or Choi Jung Hoon beyond the fact, reported here, that they went public with their relationship in August 2024.
The takeaway
The confirmed facts are these: a woman in her thirties was fined 6 million won on 16 October for criminal intimidation and defamation over 19 posts targeting Han Ji Min; she had earlier been fined 5 million won and ordered to complete a stalking treatment programme over conduct involving Choi Jung Hoon, with that ruling finalised in March; and Han Ji Min's agency confirmed on 17 October that the two cases involve the same individual.
Everything else in the story depends on how those facts are framed. The link is now on the record, the penalties are known, and the two proceedings remain distinct. Reporting on harassment cases is most useful when it keeps those distinctions clear while explaining why a confirmed connection between them matters to the people involved and to the public reading about it.
