Mr. C and Mr. D, who allege Ki Sung-yong’s sexual violence, announced the same position on the 26th through lawyer Park Ji-hoon, legal representative.
Earlier, C and D, who were former soccer players, revealed that they were sexually assaulted as elementary school students by A player in the metropolitan area who had a national team experience and Mr. B, who was also a professional.
Ki Sung-yong, who was designated as the perpetrator, said through the agent and the club, “There is no such fact at all,” and “I will take legal action”.
Among them, the suspicion that Mr. C and Mr. D were the perpetrators of other incidents in the past were raised through media interviews of his teammates during his elementary school days and articles posted on the online community.
While C and D apologized for this, they stressed that they escaped the nature of the suspicion of Ki Sung-yong.
|
The following is the full text of the positions of Mrs. C and D who raised suspicion of sexual violence against Ki Sung-yong.
1. It is an immovable fact that Sung-Yong Ki committed sexual violence against C and D.
□ The contents of the press release released in the morning of February 24, 2021, two days ago, are all true. In other words, C and D were forced to have oral sex dozens of times by Ki Sung-yong, a sixth grader, and another perpetrator B when they were in the 5th grade of the soccer club at a Jeonnam elementary school.
-Since Sung-Yong Ki already recognized that the “perpetrator” described in the press release on February 24, 2021 was pointing to him, and conducted a counter-interview through a number of media outlets, I will discuss the real name of Ki Sung-yong.
□ This attorney has sufficient and clear evidence for this.
-In order to protect the minimum moral rights of Sung-Yong Ki, these evidences are not submitted to players other than Sung-Yong Ki or the club in which Ki Sung-Yong belongs. However, we inform you that if the current immoral behavior of Ki Sung-yong continues, it will inevitably be revealed.
□ On the other hand, in the case of sexual crimes (of course, since Sung-Yong Ki was a criminal minor at the time, strictly speaking, the legal “crime” does not exist), even if there is no physical evidence and only the victim’s statement If the victim’s statement is specific and consistent, the conviction of the crime is acknowledged.
□ By the way, victims C and D of this case remember in great detail even things that could not be known if they had not experienced the situation firsthand. For example, there was a day when Ki Sung-yong specifically exempted victim C from oral sex, and under what circumstances he said and gave “silver money” to victim C, Victim C was very vivid. I remember.
1. The issue of this case is the sexual violence of Ki Sung-yong and the other perpetrator B that took place between January and June 2000.
□ When C and D exposed the acts of sexual violence committed by Ki Sung-yong through this attorney on February 24, 2021, some media outlets began on February 24, 2021, from the evening of C and D on the school violence committed in 2004. The articles are pouring out.
□ C and D acknowledge all the school violence they committed in 2004 and sincerely apologize to the victims. For reference, in the case of school violence in 2004 involving C and D, it is true that both C and D were severely disciplined and punished through a thorough investigation.
□ Nevertheless, some media are focusing on personal attacks by finding errors in C and D by referring only to the 2004 incident, with their eyes closed about the nature of the issue. Integrity cannot be seriously doubted.
□ For reference, for a short period of time from late night on February 24, 2021 to dawn on February 25, 2021, a huge amount of articles defending Ki Sung-yong and making victims C and D as perpetrators attack personally. It was written and confirmed that it was cited and published in explosive amounts on various blogs. Anyone can guess that this would be impossible without an artificial and systematic attempt to manipulate public opinion, such as the case for manipulating comments by the NIS.
1. Please maintain objectivity for judgment of evidence
□ This attorney has provided call recording files that the attorney shared with victims C and D to 2-3 media outlets.
□ In the above call recording file, victims C and D, who were asked (forced) by Ki Sung-Yong to re-distribute the informational information with the content that they were not sexually assaulted by Ki Sung-yong, were suffering and consulted with this attorney. It is contained intact.
□ In other words, the above call recording file is the conclusive evidence supporting the fact that Ki Sung-yong is the perpetrator of this case.
□ However, the media that received the above call recording file did not report on the contents and meaning of the above call recording file as promised, or even if they did, they reported that “the victims decided not to take this case into account.” . There was even a media report that said, “An infight (self-determination) occurred between the victims and lawyers.” It is only doubtful that the brilliant reporters have not been able to grasp the meaning and premise of the conversation contained in the above call recording file.
1. Stop absurd factual distortion and personal attacks against this attorney.
□ Some media say, “After Ki Sung-yong’s objection came out, the lawyer and the victims are hiding and avoiding contact with the media.”
□ However, this attorney has not been hidden or avoided contact with the media.
Since the morning of the first press release on February 24, 2021, hundreds of calls have been made to the lawyer’s cell phone and office a day, so it is physically impossible for the lawyer to receive all of these calls. In addition, this lawyer has a lot of natural duties (trials, meetings, counseling) that must be handled as a lawyer for his life. In a situation like this, of course, there must have been a phone call that our attorney inadvertently did not answer or called back. I think reporters will also be able to guess this situation with common sense.
□ However, it seems that some media outlets wrote an article saying, “The victim and the lawyer have gone into hiding,” based on the fact that they cannot reach the lawyer immediately when they want. We politely ask for correction on this point.
□ In particular, in the case of terrestrial media, the attorney has shown a bizarre behavior in which the attorney’s comments were inserted as subtitles on the screen taken at the time of the interview of another case, so we politely request correction and clarification.
1. All the victims want is a sincere apology from the perpetrators.
□ As the lawyer said in a media interview, in this case, not only Ki Sung-yong and Mr. B, who were the perpetrators, were criminal minors at the time of the case, and criminal punishment is fundamentally impossible because the statute of prosecution has already passed. In addition, civil extinction prescription has been completed, making it virtually impossible to claim civil damages.
□ In this situation, there is only one purpose for the victims to report this incident. I only wanted to get a sincere apology from the perpetrators. The victims have no desire to ruin the perpetrators’ rich life. The victims just want to be compensated for the pain they have been through for decades, with the pain that has crushed their heart, with the true young apology of the perpetrators.
□ Is this a wish that should be so unreasonable and criticized?