Ki Sung-yong’s “PD notebook polarization broadcast”… Disclosure of recording file for fostering victim D
Mr. D, “I said it wasn’t Ki Sung-yong, but the lawyer said it would be a’public scam’.”
Attorney Sung-Yong Ki “Don’t take the time and immediately disclose the evidence… Legal action within 26 days”
 |
| Ki Sung-yong (FC Seoul) is entering for pre-match training between FC Seoul and Suwon FC in the 2021 K League 1 held at the Seoul World Cup Stadium on the 7th. [연합] |
[헤럴드경제=뉴스24팀] Ki Sung-yong (32, FC Seoul), a legal representative of Ki Sung-yong (32, FC Seoul), who is engaged in a truth fight over suspicion of sexual violence in elementary school, announced that he would go into legal action sooner or later. In particular, Ki Sung-yong’s side revealed the file of Mr. D’s upbringing, saying, “The victim D expressed himself as a’popular fraud’.”
On the 17th, attorney Song Sang-yeop of the law firm Seopyeong said in a statement, “Mr. D, who claimed to be a victim on the 16th broadcast, showed tears saying that he remembered the appearance of Ki Sung-yong’s penis. It gave the people a biased view of what was true,” he criticized.
Earlier on the 16th, MBC TV’s’PD Notebook’ revealed the testimony of the victim who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Ki Sung-yong. In particular, attorney Park Ji-hoon of the side claiming the damage said, “They are telling a story that cannot be done if they have not experienced it. It’s fair to take it neatly to court and do it.”
Attorney Song, however, said, “We provided D’s upbringing file (to the PD Handbook) for this broadcast, but most were not broadcast. We provide balanced judgment data to the public.”
 |
| [MBC ‘PD수첩-우리들의 일그러진 영웅’ 편 캡처] |
Attorney Song said in the recorded file, “When the report of this case went out, Mr. D, who was a victim, asked his lawyer to correct him that he was not a player and was not a player Ki Sung-yong. “Even as a victim, Mr. D, who is a victim, is saying that his lawyer made a mistake in this case, so he has to put away his cheap shit.”
“Mr. D is testifying that he has not been condemned and threatened by Ki Sung-yong, and that he is a false claim to write a novel. The other party asked him not to bet on defamation because he would report correction to Ki Sung-yong. Through this, the public will be able to know the credibility of the other party’s official argument.”
Attorney Song also said, “Mr. D, his attorney did not ask him for confirmation and consent, and let this case go to the media at will.” “The victim and the attorney’s statements are in conflict. Either one of them is not true.”
The voice of Mr. E, who mediated the victim’s side with Ki Sung-yong as a direct junior of the victim D’s middle school, was also released. Mr. E said, “I didn’t know that my senior D would use me like this.”
Sung-Yong Ki’s lawyer said that he had solid evidence several times, urged to immediately disclose it without taking time, and said, “I will bring a legal action to hold the other party’s legal responsibility within 26 days.”
Hi.
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’the opponent’), who claimed to be a victim, showed tears, saying that he remembered Ki Sung-yong’s penis.
Yesterday’s broadcast gave the public a biased view of what is true with D’s tears as a victim. For yesterday’s broadcast, we provided the fostering of D, who was 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 of this case went out, he asked his lawyer to correct him that he was a misinformation and not Ki Sung-yong.
Even D, who is a victim, says that his lawyer made a mistake in this case, saying,’You have to get rid of the shit you cheap.’
In other words, D’s statement that this case is the victim of his lawyer’s cheap shit. Let’s listen to the training directly (Attach the testimony of the development of D)
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’s side.
However, D, who is a victim, testifies that there is no cause and threat from Ki Sung-yong’s side, even as a false claim to write a novel. Hear Victim D’s voice for yourself.
Through this, the public will be able to know the credibility of the other party’s official argument. (Affixed testimony of development)
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 difficult to believe in common sense that a lawyer distributes press releases to the media without the client’s confirmation and consent. We have reason to doubt whether we should believe D’s statement as such a victim. Let’s hear the testimony of nurturing in person (attached to the testimony of development)
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’s claiming to be a 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 the victim D or the 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 opponent asks Ki Sung-yong to never bet for defamation, as he will give information to him. (Affixed testimony of development)
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 so that you never bet on the perpetrator 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 has raised suspicion of sexual assault of Ki Sung-yong, and there is very solid evidence to prove this at first. He said,’I’ll reveal it right away’, then 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.’
They said they already had “convincing evidence” to reveal their arguments and said they would disclose it immediately, but when Ki Sung-yong asked for “release it immediately”, he changed his words and suddenly said,’You have to file a lawsuit before revealing it to the court. ‘The people do not know that when a lawsuit is filed, the first, second, and third trials are aimed at the effect of prolonging the period of suspicion for Ki Sung-yong for a long time 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. (Affixed testimony of development)
Therefore, we have urged the other party 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 incident was first reported on the broadcast yesterday, he had no one-sided awareness with Ki Sung-yong, and he did not know anything about the incident. The opponent quoted as though Ki Sung-yong admitted to his fault.
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’s junior high school junior E, who is the victim)
D, who is a victim, already knows that his middle school junior E has made good words to hear about mediating in the middle.
So I know that I don’t have any one side view with Ki Sung-Yong, and E’s words, who know nothing about this case, are not evidence. (D’s upbringing testimony)
In this way, even though the other party knows that E’s words are not evidence, the other party should be criticized for presenting it as evidence.
6. In yesterday’s broadcast, the other party said that it would be presented in a’lawsuit’ while talking as if there was great additional evidence.
Ki Sung-yong is the one who will suffer the most if the “convincing evidence” claimed by the other side 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’Confirmation 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 to the public to reveal the truth. 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 will be’convincing evidence’ in the view of the people.
We avoid the opportunity to reveal the truth for one reason or another, 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.
March 17, 2021
Sung-Yong Ki’s legal representative
Song Sang-yeop, lawyer, Seopyeong Law Firm