Kim Bong-hyun's position again, "Some media reports are also distorted…I will reveal it through inspection later."

Following the court testimony that "Kang Ki-jung delivered 50 million won to the former Blue House chief political officer," former Star Mobility Chairman Kim Bong-hyun, the core of the'Lime Incident', revealed through a letter in prison that'there was a lobby for the prosecution and opposition rights' to the SBS reporter. We have sent you an additional statement.

In a statement, former Chairman Kim's side refuted the comments of some media and exposed characters that his disclosure was less reliable, and said that he would tell the truth through the prosecution at the Ministry of Justice or prosecutors' investigation.

Former Chairman Kim's side first refuted the TV Chosun report yesterday (17th), which pointed out that his position was fluctuating.

TV Chosun said yesterday,'A lawyer from the prosecutor's office visited him and said that he had to catch chief Kang Ki-jung,' said former chairman Kim, who testified in yesterday's trial that "there was no one in contact with this case." Pointed out.

Former Chairman Kim's side refuted this by saying, "The purpose of yesterday's testimony is that there was no other person coming before yesterday's trial, not to overturn the disclosure of the letter in prison."

Attorney A, who was a former prosecutor's office, refuted the revelation of former Chairman Kim through a statement.

Attorney A refuted through some media with the intention of saying,'When I was interviewed at the Suwon District Prosecutor's Office in early May of this year, the claim that former chairman Kim said that attorney A was not elected is not true.'

In response, former Chairman Kim said, "The time when A was appointed from March of last year to the end of last year," and argued that lawyer A had not been appointed in May this year when he interviewed Suwon District Prosecutors' Office.

Regarding the disclosure of former chairman Kim that the lawyer A's side ``entered a prosecutor, including A lawyer in July last year,'' there was no current prosecutor, and there were several months apart before the start of the drinking party and rhyme investigation in July last year. He also expressed his position on refuted with the intention that it makes no sense to entertain him in preparation for the Lime investigation.

Former Chairman Kim argued, "Attorney A raises a question of credibility, saying that there was a period of time between drinking and the investigation of Lime, but it was not wrong because he expressed that in the disclosure letter,'If we create a Lime investigation team in the future'." .

In addition, he added that it will be revealed through ongoing surveillance or investigations as to who was at the drinking party.

In connection with the fact that Woori Bank announced that he would review legal action against him, who raised suspicion of lobbying, the former chairman Kim said, "The situation where Woori Bank was already mentioned in the transcript released by comedian Kim Han-seok, who suffered damage from lime investment. This is why we disclosed the name of Woori Bank.”

Former Chairman Kim added, "Some of the media talk as if they would continue to expose themselves, but I don't intend to do that," he added. "I will accurately reveal the facts through ongoing surveillance or investigation."

Meanwhile, it was confirmed that the Ministry of Justice conducted an inspection investigation on the side of former Chairman Kim yesterday.

Former Chairman Kim's lawyer said, "I went to the Ministry of Justice yesterday to investigate the contents of the disclosure of the letter in prison."

(Hereinafter, the full text of the statement sent by Kim Bong-Hyun to SBS)

1. In relation to the TV Chosun article above yesterday, the purpose of my testimony is that someone else came and asked me to change the statement before the witness newspaper at the trial of Chairman Sang-ho Lee. In response to the prosecutor's question, I said that it wasn't, but I wasn't talking about it as a TV Chosun article.

2. Regarding Attorney A, while attorney A disclosed his arguments, it is said that the information in my position saying that he visited the Suwon District Prosecutor's Office in early May 2020 (not the senior attorney) was wrong, but the time when attorney A was appointed was from March 2019. It is until the end of that year, and there is no appointment in May 2020, and it is claimed that there is a period of time between drinking and rhyme investigations. According to what I wrote in my article, I wrote that "if I will make a rhyme investigation team in the future", so I wrote it incorrectly. Not.

I think it will be revealed through the ongoing surveillance or investigation, etc., as to who was at the drinking party.

3. Regarding Woori Bank, I saw an article saying that Woori Bank is reviewing legal action against my position, but when my position was published, if the name was not previously disclosed to the media, it was anonymized. In the case, it was sent as it is.

However, in the early morning article on the day of my admission, the suspicion about the lobbying of opposition personnel was already disclosed to the media through transcripts, so I thought that Woori Bank could give the name as it is.

Also, the truthfulness of the case will be revealed through the ongoing surveillance or investigation, as well as the dispute with Attorney A.

4. Some articles appear as if I will continue to disclose, but I have not disclosed such thoughts, and I would like to reveal the facts according to the procedure through ongoing surveillance or investigation.