In a press release on the 17th, attorney Song Sang-yeop (law firm book review), Ki Sung-yong’s legal representative, 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. I emphasized.
At the same time, attorney Song insisted that D’s training files were provided to the’PD Notebook’, but most of them were not broadcast.
Attorney Song revealed the reason, saying, “We provide balanced judgment data to the public” by releasing Mr. D’s training file.
|
The night before, the’PD Notebook’ dealt with the school violence (academic) situation that recently hit the sports world through the’Our Twisted Heroes’ section. Among them, the claims of the legal representatives C and D who raised the suspicion of sexual assault Ki Sung-yong also spread.
While Ki Sung-yong strongly denied the allegations, Mr. C and Mr. D reiterated their claim that they had been victims of sexual assault by Ki Sung-yong in this broadcast.
In particular, Mr. D said in this broadcast, “Of course, we are the perpetrators of (another incident). However, the fact of the damage (from Ki Sung-yong and Mr. B) is a clear fact,” he cried, saying, “If my words are a lie, I can put everything down.”
The following is the full text of Ki Sung-yong’s official position, including some of the contents of Mr. D’s upbringing file.
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’the opponent’), who claimed to be a victim, showed tears saying that he remembered the shape of 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 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, but his lawyer said what he was in his position, saying that it would become a’public scam’.
Even the victim, D, is saying,’I have to get rid of my cheap shit’ because his attorney made a mistake in this case.
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 uncontaminated initial 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 reason or intimidation 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 hard to believe in common sense that lawyers distribute 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 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 really are the victim, I’ll give you a false report, so why don’t you ejaculate like that, asking 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 to prove this. 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 “immediately disclose”, he changed his words and suddenly said,’I will only open the lawsuit in court. ‘The people do not know that when a lawsuit is filed, the first, second, and third trials are aimed at 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 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 side said that it would be presented in a’suit’ 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 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 evidence that swears to the other person that it is’definite evidence’. The other side will not be ignoring the intellectual abilities of the people, 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 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 with an excuse for not knowing when the disclosure of evidence will end 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