[전문] Ki Sung-Yong’s preparation for legal response, “Disclose clear evidence to the public” – SPOTVNEWS

On the 24th of last month, Ji-Hoon Park, a law firm attorney, disclosed allegations of sexual assault at the elementary school soccer club in Jeonnam from January 2000 to June 2000. According to attorney Park, the perpetrator A is a star player from the national team who recently joined a prestigious club in the metropolitan area, and B is an outpatient professor at a university in Gwangju.

Attorney Park Ji-hoon said, “At the time, the perpetrators A and B were in the 6th grade of elementary school, and the victims C and D were in the 5th grade of elementary school. At the soccer club camp, the perpetrators A and B called the victims C and D and forced them to have oral sex. If he did not like it, it led to a ruthless assault.”

Ki Sung-yong responded strongly. Immediately, the agent’C2 Global’ said in a press release, “Ki Sung-yong is being identified as the perpetrator in relation to the article of sexual violence in elementary school, national team A player. As a result of checking with the person, there was no relation to the report of the person claiming the victim.” Announced. Ki Sung-yong also asked for a press conference directly after the opening game of the K-League with Jeonbuk Hyundai, saying, “If there is evidence, it is enough to present it.”

However, on the 6th of this month, through MBC’s’PD Notebook’, it was argued that Mr. A said something completely different to Ki Sung-yong’s side. On the 17th, attorney Sung-Yong Ki, lawyer Seopyeong Song of the Law Firm, released a total of eight files of testimony for fostering Mr. A and the testimony of junior B, who was introduced as a witness of the case on the broadcast.

Attorney Song Sang-yeop said, “The words of victim A, who said his claim is a’public fraud,’ are changing. Mr. A said his attorney freely spilled the case to the media without consent. He said,’You have to get rid of the shit cheap by yourself (attorney). It was A that asked Ki Sung-yong not to file a defamation lawsuit because he would report a correction. However, on yesterday’s broadcast, he shed tears and complained of sexual assault damage. The statement of either the lawyer and the victim A is not true. “I replied.

He added, “It is necessary to disclose certain evidence to the public. The other side will not ignore the people’s intellectual abilities. Therefore, if the other side sees it, if it is’solid evidence’, it will be’convincing evidence’ in the view of the people. They claimed that they would take legal action within 26 days.

[전문]

I am Song Sang-yeop attorney at Seopyeong Law Firm, the legal representative of Sung-Yong Ki.

Yesterday, an allegation to the effect that Ki Sung-yong raped male junior players when he was in elementary school was broadcasted. In the broadcast, D (hereinafter referred to as the’other party’), who claimed to be a victim, showed tears, saying that he remembered the shape of Ki Sung-yong’s penis.

Yesterday’s broadcast, with the tears of Victim D, provided the people with a biased view of what was true. For yesterday’s broadcast, we provided the fostering of D, who is a victim, provided in this press release, but most of them were not broadcast, so we provide balanced judgment data to the public.

Through this, the public will directly hear the testimony of D’s own upbringing that he is the victim of exposing the truth while weeping on the broadcast, so that the public can judge the truth of this situation.

1. Regarding the nature of this incident, D, who is a victim, expressed himself as a’popular scam’. D, who is a victim, said that when the report went out, he asked his lawyer to correct him that he was a misinformation and not Ki Sung-yong, but his lawyer said what he was in his position, saying that it would become a’public scam’.

Even the victim, D, is saying,’I have to get rid of my cheap shit’ because his attorney made a mistake in this case.

2. Whether or not D’s initial uncontaminated statement as the victim above was concerned, the other side has argued that there was a conviction and intimidation from Ki Sung-yong. However, D, who is a victim, does not have any cause or threats from Ki Sung-yong’s side. They even testify as false claims to write novels.

3. Furthermore, D, who is a victim, even said that his attorney did not ask him for confirmation and consent, and that the case was leaked to the media at will. It is hard to believe in common sense that lawyers distribute press releases to the media without the client’s confirmation and consent. We have reasonable doubts whether to believe D’s statement as such a victim.

This is a public inquiry.

Did the other party’s attorney report to the media without D’s consent and confirmation as the victim, as D, who claims to be the victim? If the other party’s attorney says that he has distributed the press release to the media with the confirmation and consent of the person he is representing (victim D), the statements of both victim D or victim D’s attorneys are in conflict and one of the two Boone’s statement is not true.

With this answer, the public will be able to gauge the credibility of the claim that he is a victim.

4. The other party asks Ki Sung-yong to never bet on defamation as he will give information to him.

Please think with common sense.

If you’re really the victim, I’ll give you a false report, so why don’t you ejaculate like that to ask the perpetrator not to bet with defamation?

The wrongdoer quickly covered up the problem and corrected him to misrepresent the problem in order not to raise the problem, but he does not dare to raise the work on foot because of defamation.

That’s D’s true intention that it was a victim who came out in an uncontaminated state at the beginning of the incident.

5. In the meantime, the other side raised suspicion of sexual assault of Ki Sung-yong, and at first, there is very solid evidence to prove this. He said,’I’ll reveal it right away,’ but suddenly changed his words and said,’I can’t reveal the evidence. If Ki Sung-yong sues or sues, I will only disclose it to the court.’

When they said they already had “confirmed evidence” to reveal their arguments and said they would immediately disclose it, Ki Sung-yong asked for “immediate disclosure”, and then he changed his words and suddenly said, “I will only disclose it in court only when I have a lawsuit.” People do not know that if a lawsuit is filed, the first, second, and third trials are aimed at prolonging the period of suspicion for Ki Sung-yong until the trial is finalized for several years.

Even D, who is a victim, is forgotten anyway after some time, and he even says that he has nothing to damage because no one remembers it. This is the intent of the party to talk about in the lawsuit.

Therefore, we have urged the other party’s lawyers to disclose the truth by revealing it in front of the public, rather than seeing only the other party’s attorneys alone that will reveal the truth that the other party has.

When this case was first reported on the broadcast yesterday, he had no one-sided relationship with Ki Sung-yong, and he did not know anything about this case.

The other side quoted that Ki Sung-yong admitted to what he did by making good words for each other.

As a result, E, who is close to D’s junior high school direct junior, who is a victim, testifies that D, who is his senior, did not know how to use himself in this way.

D, who is a victim, already knows that his middle school junior E has made good words to listen to each other about mediating in the middle.

So, I am well aware that E’s words, who don’t know anything about this case, aren’t evidence.

In this way, even though the other party knows that E’s words are not evidence, the other party will have to be criticized for presenting it as evidence.

6. In yesterday’s broadcast, the other side said that it would be presented in the’Litigation’ while talking as if there was great additional evidence.

Ki Sung-yong is the one who will suffer the most if the ‘confirmed evidence’ that the other side is claiming is true. Sung-Yong Ki wants to disclose the evidence, so there will be no legal obstacles to revealing it.

In addition, the other party is giving the reason that another person appears in the’confirmed evidence’. You can take protective measures (mosaic treatment, voice alteration, etc.) for the other person you want to protect and disclose it.

In some cases, the other side will disclose the evidence that will reveal the truth in front of the public. If there is another reason for disability, please tell us anything.

We will remove all reasons that may be an obstacle when we disclose the evidence in front of the public that swears to the other person as’definite evidence’.

The other side will not be ignoring the people’s intellectual abilities, so if the other side sees it, if it is’convincing evidence’, it is also in the people’s view it is’confirm evidence’.

We avoid the opportunity to reveal the truth for one or another reason, and if time is not the purpose, we expect the other party to be responsible for revealing the truth by immediately revealing’convincing evidence’ that reveals the truth in front of the public.

Since you have raised a national suspicion, everyone who wants the truth now wants to disclose the evidence. However, I would like to tell the public that the only one who refuses to make a lawsuit without knowing when the evidence will be released will end.

7. Legal action to seek legal responsibility for the other party is raised on March 26, 2021.

Spotify News = Reporter Park Dae-sung

Report [email protected]