Seven-Year Sentence Upheld on Appeal in Nana Home-Invasion Case

The seven-year prison sentence handed down to the man convicted of breaking into singer and actress Nana’s home has been upheld on appeal.

On October 22, the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 14-3 dismissed appeals filed by both the defendant and the prosecution, leaving the original sentence unchanged.

The ruling marks a substantive new development in the criminal case stemming from the November 2025 home invasion.

Court Upholds Original Sentence

The defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison at first instance in June after being convicted of robbery causing injury.

The case concerns an incident in which he entered Nana’s home in Guri, Gyeonggi Province, while armed with a weapon, threatened Nana and her mother, and demanded money.

The two women subdued him during the confrontation and contacted police. Both sustained injuries.

Following the initial judgment, the defendant appealed, disputing aspects of the court’s findings and seeking a more lenient outcome.

The prosecution also appealed, arguing that the original sentence was insufficient and requesting a ten-year prison term.

The appellate court rejected both sides’ appeals.

In explaining its decision, the court emphasized the seriousness of entering an occupied home at night while armed, the harm caused to the victims and their wish to see the defendant punished. It found no new circumstances warranting a change to the original sentence.

The seven-year term therefore remains in place following the second-instance ruling.

Separate Legal Proceedings Remain Distinct

The October 22 decision concerns the original home-invasion robbery case.

It is separate from the additional false-accusation prosecution involving the same defendant, which arose after he filed a criminal complaint against Nana over injuries sustained while she and her mother subdued him.

Police previously determined that Nana had acted in self-defense and did not refer the allegations against her for prosecution. The defendant subsequently faced a separate false-accusation indictment.

That indictment does not constitute a conviction, and its outcome was not decided by the October 22 appellate judgment.

The latest ruling also should not be treated as confirmation that every avenue of further appeal has been exhausted.