Soccer player Ki Sung-yong directly refuted the broadcast content of the MBC PD Notebook.
In a press release on the 17th, attorney Song Sang-yeop Seopyeong, the legal representative of Ki Sung-yong, said, “The’PD notebook’ broadcasted on the 16th gave the people a biased view of what is true with D’s tears as a victim. “They argued that their objections and evidence were not reflected.
Attorney Song, along with the allegations, attached a training file known as D’s. He explained, “For yesterday’s broadcast, we provided the upbringing of D, the victim, which was provided in this press release, but most of them are not broadcast, so we provide balanced judgment materials to the public.”
In the’PD Notebook’ that aired on the 16th, Mr. D and his legal representative claimed that Ki Sung-yong had been sexually assaulted while he was in school.
In addition, Mr. D added that it would disclose certain evidence of this in court.
Earlier, on the 24th, C and D were exposed through lawyer Park Ji-hoon that they were sexually assaulted by their seniors A and B in January-June 2000 while they were in a soccer club at an elementary school in Jeonnam.
The following is the full text of Ki Sung-yong’s official position.
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 referred to as’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 is a victim, provided in this press release, but most of them are 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.
D, who is a victim, even 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 above victim 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 other party asks Ki Sung-yong to never bet on 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 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 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 it was released immediately, but when Ki Sung-yong asked for “release 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 attorney alone to 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 present it in a’lawsuit’ while talking as if there was great additional evidence.
If the “convincing evidence” the opponent claims is true, the person who will suffer the most damage is Ki Sung-yong. 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’convincing 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 to the public revealing the evidence that the other person swears as’convincing evidence’ in the eyes of the other person. 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 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