Ki Sung-yong’s side “PD notebook bias… The alleged person, immediately disclose the hard evidence.”

Soccer player Ki Sung-yong (32, FC Seoul) criticized MBC’s’PD Notebook’ as a “biased broadcast”, which dealt with the testimony of victims who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by him in elementary school. Then, to the side of Mr. D who raised the suspicion, he said, “You must immediately disclose’convincing evidence’ that reveals the truth in front of the public.”
Attorney Song Sang-yeop of Seopyeong, a legal representative of Ki Sung-yong, issued a statement on the 17th and pointed out, “The broadcast on the 16th provided a biased view of what was true to the people with the tears of the victims.” Their objections and evidence were not reflected on the broadcast.

Lawyer Song said, “Yesterday, there was a claim on the air that Ki Sung-yong sexually assaulted male junior players when he was in elementary school,” said “D, who claims to be a victim in the broadcast, shed tears saying he remembers the shape of Ki Sung-yong’s penis. I could see it.”

Victim D’s upbringing testimony data was also released. Attorney Song said, “We provided the upbringing of Mr. D, who was the victim provided in this press release for the broadcast yesterday, but most of it was not broadcast.” “I will let you hear and judge the truth of this situation.”

There have also been criticisms of the victims for not disclosing evidence. Attorney Song said, “In the meantime, the other party (Mr. D) raised suspicion of sexual assault of Ki Sung-yong, and at first he said,’There is very certain evidence to prove this. We will disclose it immediately.’ “If Ki Sung-yong sues or sues, I will only disclose it to the court,” he said.

“If a lawsuit is filed, the public does not know that the effect is that the first, second, and third trials are aimed at prolonging the period of suspicion for Ki Sung-yong until the trial is finalized for several years.” It is forgotten over time, and he even says that he has nothing to damage because no one remembers it. This is the deception of the party who wants to talk in the lawsuit.”

Attorney Song urged the victims to disclose certain evidence. He said, “We avoid the opportunity to reveal the truth with this or that reason, and if time dragging is not the purpose, we look forward to a responsible attitude to reveal the truth by immediately revealing’definite evidence’ in front of the public,” he said.

Attorney Song concluded his position with an explanation that he will bring legal action to inquire about the other’s legal responsibility within the 26th of this month.

The PD notebook, which aired on the 16th, dealt with Ki Sung-yong’s suspicion of sexual assault in elementary school. Those who claim the damage testified that the damage lasted for at least six months, saying, “I cannot accurately remember the number of damages, but it was not called once or twice.”

Their lawyers said, “I remember the shape of the penis (of the perpetrators such as Ki Sung-yong), and even the feeling when I had oral sex, I talked with a miserable and terrible heart.” “There have been many reports since (damage claim),” he said. “If the evidence is disclosed, it can be said (expected) that (Kee Sung-yong’s side) pressure will come in, such as overturning the statement. It is fair to take it neatly to court and do it.” did.

The following is the full text of Ki Sung-yong’s legal representative’s position.

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’other party’), 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 D’s own upbringing testimony 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 upbringing yourself.

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.

Through this, the public will be able to know the credibility of the other party’s official argument.

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.

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.

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 raised suspicion of sexual assault of Ki Sung-yong, and at first there is’very solid evidence.’ 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 they would immediately disclose it, 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 you have a lawsuit. People do not know that if a lawsuit is filed, the first, second, and third trials are aimed at prolonging the period of suspicion for Ki Sung-yong 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.

Therefore, we have urged the other party to disclose the truth by revealing it in front of the public, rather than looking at the other’s lawyer alone, which 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 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 immediate victim, D, already knows that his middle school junior E mediated in the middle by making a pleasing statement to each other.

So, I am well aware that E’s words, who don’t know anything about this case, aren’t evidence.

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 side said that it would be presented in the’Litigation’ while talking as if there was great additional evidence.

Ki Sung-yong is 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 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 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.

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.

.Source