Ki Sung-yong is holding a press conference to refute allegations of sexual assault. Provide| MBC[매일경제 스타투데이 진향희 기자]
Soccer player Ki Sung-yong (FC Seoul, 32) countered the broadcast on the 16th of the’PD Notebook’ as “a biased broadcast.”
On the 17th, attorney Seopyeong Song Sang-yeop, a legal representative of Ki Sung-yong, released a press release on the 17th and said, “The’PD notebook’ broadcasted on the 16th gave the people a biased view of what was true with the tears of D, who was a victim.” Pointed out.
He also attached a file of Mr. D’s nurturing, saying, “We provided the nurturing of D, who was the victim provided in this press release for the broadcast yesterday, but most of it was not broadcasted, so we provide balanced judgment data to the public.”
He added, “Through this, we will let the people 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 people can judge the truth of this situation.”
Ki Sung-yong said, “For many years, the period for which Ki Sung-yong is suspicious will only increase until the trial is finalized. He urged the other party not to look at the other’s lawyer alone, but open it in front of the public immediately to reveal the truth that the other party has.”
MBC’s’PD Notebook’, broadcast on the 16th, dealt with the recent school violence (academic violence) that shook the sports world through’Our Twisted Heroes’, and interviews with C and D and legal representatives who raised the suspicion of sexual assault of Ki Sung-Yong It was revealed.
D said on this day, “I am not afraid anymore. If I’m lying, I’ll let go of it.” Mr. D said it would disclose conclusive evidence for this in court.
The’PD Notebook’ also said that a person witnessed a sexual assault at the time, but he did not reveal it on the broadcast because he wanted it to be released in court.
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 development)
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 reasonable doubts whether to believe D’s statement as such a victim. Let’s hear the testimony of nurturing in person (attached the testimony of nurturing to D)
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 disseminates the press release to the media with the confirmation and consent of the person he represents (victim D), the statement of the victim D or the victim D’s attorney is 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 as a victim who came out of the face in an uncontaminated state early in 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 immediately disclose it, but when Ki Sung-yong asked for “immediate disclosure”, he changed his words and suddenly said, “You have to file a lawsuit to reveal it in 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’s lawyer to disclose the truth by revealing it in front of the public, rather than looking at the other’s lawyer 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 other side 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 direct junior E, who is the victim)
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. (D’s upbringing testimony)
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 party said that it would present it in a’lawsuit’ while talking as if there was great additional evidence.
If the’convincing evidence’ that the opponent claims is true, then 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 hold the other party’s legal responsibility is raised on March 26, 2021.
March 17, 2021
Sung-Yong Ki’s legal representative
Song Sang-yeop, lawyer, Seopyeong Law Firm
[ⓒ 매일경제 & mk.co.kr, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]