 |
[스포탈코리아] Reporter Kim Seong-jin = The legal representative of Ki Sung-yong (32, FC Seoul), who was suspected of assaulting sexual violence, released data to refute the allegations of the victim who claimed to be a victim.
On the 17th, attorney Song Sang-yeop of Seopyeong, the legal representative of Ki Sung-yong, said on the 17th, “Yesterday (16th), an allegation to the effect that Ki Sung-yong raped male junior players when he was in elementary school was broadcasted. D (hereinafter’the opponent’) who claimed to be a victim in the broadcast showed tears saying that he remembered the shape of Ki Sung-yong’s penis. Provided a biased view of For yesterday’s broadcast, we provided the fostering of D, the victim, which was provided in this press release, but most of them are not broadcast, so we provide balanced judgment data to the public.”
Attorney Song said, “Through this, we will let the people hear the testimony of D’s own upbringing as 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’s side refuted the victims’ claims on the broadcast one by one. The following is Ki Sung-yong’s position.
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.
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.
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.
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 opponent asks Ki Sung-yong to never bet for defamation, as he will give information to him. 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 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 the victim who came out 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 will release it immediately,’ 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 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 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, 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.
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 “convincing 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’convincing evidence’. You can take protective measures (mosaic treatment, voice alteration, etc.) for the other person you want to protect and disclose it.
If there is another reason for disability, the other party will disclose the evidence that will reveal the truth in front of the public. We will remove all reasons that may be an obstacle to the public revealing the evidence that swears to the other person as’definite evidence’.
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’convincing evidence’. We avoid the opportunity to reveal the truth for one or another reason, and if time lag is not the purpose, we expect the other party to take a responsible attitude to reveal the truth by immediately revealing’convincing evidence’ to the public to reveal the truth.
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 liability is filed on March 26, 2021.
March 17, 2021
Sung-Yong Ki’s legal representative
Song Sang-yeop, lawyer, Seopyeong Law Firm
Photo = Korea Professional Football Federation
Coverage inquiry [email protected] | Copyright ⓒ Sportal Korea. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited