Ki Sung-yong’s lawyer, “Broadcasting (‘PD notebook’) provides a biased perspective, reveal evidence.” [전문]

[미디어펜=석명 기자] The legal representative of Ki Sung-yong (32, FC Seoul), who is suspected of sexual assault from his juniors in elementary school, urged the victim (the legal representative of) to disclose any evidence immediately. It is a refutation of the content that the victim (or legal representative) argued through the broadcast.

On the 17th, attorney Song Sang-yeop of the law firm Seopyeong, who is in charge of Ki Sung-yong’s legal representative, distributed a press release that reveals Ki Sung-yong’s position. The previous day (16th), it responded to the victim’s argument that was dealt with in MBC’s’PD Handbook’.

Ki Sung-yong is under suspicion that he raped two one-year juniors together with his soccer teammates when he was in the sixth grade of elementary school, and victims D and a lawyer appeared in the’PD Notebook’ to claim the damage once again. The’PD Notebook’ side secured additional evidence, but did not disclose it on the broadcast, saying that the victim wanted to reveal it in court.

In the press release, “the broadcast (referring to the’PD notebook’) provided a biased view to the public with the tears of D, who is a victim. Yesterday, D’s fostering was provided for the broadcast, but most were not broadcast, so it was a balanced judgment. I give the data to the people,” he said, and attached nine audio recording files. The recorded file consists of 8 utterances by a person named D and 1 utterance by a person named E.

On the basis of the recorded contents, lawyer Song Sang-yeop said,’The victim D wrote the expression of a scam to the people in a conversation with the lawyer’,’D said that there was no intimidation and intimidation of Ki Sung-yong’,’D is that his lawyer confirms to himself and He said that he had spilled the case to the media at will without asking for consent.’

In addition, when the victim said that he would disclose’there is definite evidence,’ but when Ki Sung-yong asked, “I will disclose it immediately,” he changed his word to “if I file a lawsuit, I will disclose it to the court”, and while talking as if there was additional evidence on the broadcast, He said he would present it in the lawsuit (court) and asked him to disclose the evidence that would reveal the truth without taking time.

Finally, he announced a legal response, saying, “I will bring legal action to ask for legal responsibility on the other side within March 26.”

[기성용 법률대리인 법무법인 서평 송상엽 변호사 보도자료]

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 (the’opposite’), 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 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,’I have to get rid of my cheap shit.’

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,’ 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.’

They said they already had “confirmed evidence” to reveal their arguments and said it was released immediately, but when Ki Sung-yong asked for “immediate disclosure”, he changed his words and suddenly said, “I will only disclose it in court only if he filed a lawsuit.” ‘The people do not know that if 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’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 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. On 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 will be the one who will suffer the most if the “confirmed 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’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 to the public to reveal the truth. If there is another reason for disability, please tell us anything.

We will remove all the reasons that may be an obstacle to the public revealing the evidence that the other person swears as ‘definite 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 will be’confirmed evidence’ in the view of the people as well.

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.

March 17, 2021

Song Sang-yeop, lawyer at Seopyeong Law Firm, the legal representative of Sung-Yong Ki

[미디어펜=석명 기자] ▶View other articles