[Nate] "WAS IT A SETUP OR R***?"... FULL STORY BEHIND JISOO'S OPPA AND THE BJ'S DINNER DATE

Someone is “lying.”

Man: “She went into the bedroom first. Naturally, I thought it was a green light.”

Woman: “I grabbed his wrist and led him into the master bedroom. I was trying to put him to sleep quickly and leave.”

Same time, same place, but completely different statements.

Even their memories of the bedroom conflict: who entered first, why someone sat on the bed — their claims differ on every point.

Someone is lying, or at least giving a false statement. The problem is that there are not many ways to prove the credibility of either account. For now, people can only rely on what each side says.

Dispatch investigated allegations that the older brother of a top star SA-ed a BJ,

The suspect is A, the older brother of Jisoo from BLACKPINK, while the alleged victim is B, who works as a BJ/live streamer.

First, here are the parts where both sides’ statements match. The positions of A and B were conveyed through their legal representatives.

What Doesn’t Change: “Dinner Date”

A logged onto SOOP (formerly AfreecaTV). By chance, he entered B’s personal livestream. He sent her 35,000 “star balloons”, worth about 3.5 million won (~2.3K USD).

As a result, A obtained a “dinner date ticket”. Then, on April 15, they met at an izakaya in Cheongdam-dong. They arrived around 6:30 p.m. and left at 10 p.m.

The “dinner date” continued into a second round. The two headed to A’s home. B explained why she agreed to go with him, saying, “He was very gentlemanly during dinner. He didn’t even try any physical contact.”

While riding in a taxi, A ordered food delivery. The two ate a late-night meal in the kitchen and drank alcohol. After that, they moved to the sofa and turned on the TV.

Up to this point, the memories of both parties matched. The problem is what happened after they sat on the sofa.

Conflicting Memories: The Bedroom

Kitchen → dining table → living room → sofa → bedroom → bed. Both sides agreed on the general path of movement. However, they disagreed on the order of events. First, here is A’s account:

“The woman got up from the sofa first and went into the bedroom. She went to the bed first, by herself. Naturally, I took that as a green light.”

B pushed back, calling it “A’s misunderstanding.”

“A had taken zolpidem and said he was sleepy. So I grabbed his wrist and led him to the bed. I was trying to put him to sleep quickly and leave. I also had to do a livestream review broadcast afterward.”

Why is the man emphasizing the order of movement? According to A, it suggested “seduction.”

“It’s a house where a man lives alone, and the woman went into the master bedroom by herself. How else am I supposed to interpret that? That she was just trying to put me to sleep? Nothing was detected in the police rapid drug test.”

The woman’s side explained that it was simply part of “the professional nature of being a BJ” and “not strange behavior at all.”

“Mr. A was a major spender (‘big hand’). I couldn’t just leave him alone. I needed to make a good impression. Since he said he was sleepy, I took him to the bedroom so he could fall asleep quickly and I could go home.”

# Conflicting Claims: The Act

S** offenses originate from s****l acts accompanied by as***lt or intimidation. They are classified as 'r***' depending on whether s****l intercourse occurred, and 'indecent as***lt' depending on whether physical contact took place.

Then, what kind of act took place between the two? The man denied it, claiming it was "only an attempt," while the woman countered that "the actual act occurred."

Let's hear more of the man's claims.

"The woman was sitting on the edge of the bed. I hugged her, asking her to sleep with me. It naturally led to physical contact. (...) But right then..."

The woman's account is completely different.

"I was sitting on the bed trying to put A to sleep. However, he kept pulling me, asking me to sleep with him. I was so shocked that I tried to get up, but he forcibly pushed me back onto the bed."

During the investigation, B changed the charge against A to 'r***'.

"He pulled me in forcefully. He also forcibly removed my lower garments. When I resisted, he pinned me down with his whole body. Then he attempted to have s** with me. That is when I..."

Conflicting Claims: Consent

The core element constituting a s** offense is the other party's intent. Whether the consent was voluntary or coerced against one's will serves as the criterion for determining whether a s** offense has occurred.

The two individuals presented completely different claims regarding this aspect as well.

First, the man's perspective. A stated, "I did not refuse at all. The process was natural," adding, "I could have stopped [the act] at any time if B wanted to."

Then, he brought up "that moment" (mentioned earlier).

"I lowered my pants while engaging in physical contact. At that time, [she] looked for a restroom. She said she would 'go wash up.' We each went to the restroom and washed."

The woman's account is different.

"He lunged at me aggressively. I strongly resisted, but it was no use. I wanted to escape that situation. So I made up the excuse that we should 'wash up first.'"

Conflicting Claims: Bathroom 1

A police investigation has begun. As of now, the situation consists solely of statements from both sides. The man requested an opportunity to refute the woman's claims through 'Dispatch.' The woman did the same.

"You're saying I forced you to have s**? If that were the case, you shouldn't have washed in the bathroom. Since you need to preserve the evidence (of the r***). The woman's story doesn't add up."

"Why did I wash? I thought he would suspect me otherwise. I felt he would interrogate me about why I went to the bathroom. I was actually buying time (to report it) while washing."

'Dispatch' verified the KakaoTalk messages B sent to her manager from the (first) bathroom.

Woman: Save me, seriously, please. Something terrible has happened.

Manager: Why, why are you calling?

Woman: Right now I'm...

Manager: Why?

Woman: I came to this f*cker's house

Woman: And I think I'm going to be r**** right now

"You're saying I showered because I wanted it too? Then there would be no need to send a distress call to my manager. My manager received my message and immediately reported it to the police."

Conflicting Claims: The “Setup”

The man also claimed this was a “setup” crime orchestrated by the woman.

“If the woman had truly refused, nothing would have even started. I didn’t force anything, and she didn’t resist. There was absolutely no reason for me to force her.”

He argued that the entire situation was a planned scheme by a group of BJs, He gave three reasons: (1) they knew his identity, (2) they consistently showed interest, and (3) the situation could have been stopped at any time.

(1) Identity recognition

“A manager of the BJ arrived at the scene with the police. While filming me, he said, ‘You’re Jisoo’s brother, right? You’re finished now.’ They clearly knew who I was.”

(2) Expressions of interest

“At the meal date, she said I was her ideal type and that she wanted to look pretty for me. She said it was her first time meeting someone living in Cheongdam-dong and wanted to be invited. That’s how she followed me home and even went into the bedroom first.”

(3) Ability to stop at any time

“During the process, I stopped twice at her request. I never blocked her from going to the bathroom. If she didn’t want it, she could have stopped at any time. And in fact, she did.”

The woman responded point by point:

(1)

“He said he was a businessman who had sold a famous shopping mall. I searched his KakaoTalk profile photo on Google, and it showed he was Jisoo’s brother. That’s how I found out.”

(2)

“It was the man who suggested going to his home that day. I went because he promised there would be no physical contact. I went to the bedroom to put him to sleep quickly for my broadcast.”
(3)

“I asked him to stop several times. My lower clothing had already been removed, so I couldn’t leave. A person was standing in front of the bathroom, so I couldn’t even go out.”

Conflicting Claims: Restroom 2

Positions regarding the restroom were also sharply divided.

We heard the woman's side of the story first.

"(1st time) I asked the manager for help in the restroom. I stalled for time by asking for body wash. I couldn't stay there for too long. I was scared he might suspect me (of running away)."

B came out of the restroom at 11:53 PM. According to her, A's "charge" began again.

B stated, "A was waiting in front of the restroom door," adding, "As soon as I came out, he took off my top and started kissing my neck."

"He kissed my neck and then my mouth. I escaped into the restroom saying I was going to brush my teeth. I sent a video of the kiss mark on the back of my neck to the manager and asked for help for the second time."

The man's perspective was different.

"That is why the r*** claim is even stranger. I didn't stop her. I stopped when she told me to, and I let her go when she said she was going (to the bathroom). She could have just gone home."

Conflicting Claims: Timeline

Here is the timeline of events from that night in the house:
First alleged indecent act: 23:30–23:42
Bathroom (1st time): 23:42–23:53
Second alleged indecent act: 23:53–23:59
Bathroom (2nd time): 23:59–00:04
Police arrival: 00:12

The woman stated, “I struggled to escape the man’s coercion,” adding that she suffered bruises (not visible to the naked eye) during the process. She also submitted a medical injury report.

“I told him to stop dozens of times, but I couldn’t stop him. A crime for money? If that were the case, I wouldn’t have reported it to the police. I urge people to stop secondary victimization.

The man shook his head and disputed this account:

“There are two bathrooms in my house. If I was in the bathroom showering, she could have just left. She moved around freely as she wanted. I never stopped her.”

He further claimed:

“She knew I was the brother of a celebrity. I suspect this was a planned ‘setup’ case for financial gain. If she demanded money first, that would be blackmail, so she reported it to the police and is now trying to seek a settlement.”

The situation remains sharply divided, with no compromise from either side. The woman is accusing the man of sexual assault, while the man plans to counter with a defamation (false accusation) case. What is the truth of that night? Someone is lying.