Sung-Yong Ki completely refuted MBC's'PD Notebook', which sent out allegations of victims alleging sexual violence, as "a biased broadcast".
In a press release on the 17th, attorney Song Sang-yeop Seopyeong, the legal representative of Ki Sung-yong, 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. "They argued that their objections and evidence were not reflected.
Attorney Song, along with the allegations, attached a training file known as Mr. D's. He explained the reason for the release of the training file, saying, "We provided the upbringing of D, the victim, who was 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."
In the'PD Notebook' broadcasted on the 16th, Mr. D and his legal representative claimed that Ki Sung-yong had been sexually assaulted while he was in school, and emphasized that although several years have passed, the situation at the time can be described in detail. In addition, Mr. D added that it would disclose conclusive evidence for this in court.
Regarding this, Ki Sung-yong said, "(The legal response) only increases the period of time for which Ki Sung-yong is suspicious until the trial is finalized for several years." Don't look at it, and open it right in front of the people,” he urged.
The following is the full text of Ki Sung-yong's official position.
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 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 was 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 incident was reported, he asked his lawyer to correct him that he was a misinformation and not Ki Sung-yong, but his lawyer said what his position would be, saying that it would be a'public scam'.
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 in person
.
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. (D attached testimony)
3. Furthermore, D, who is a victim, even said that his attorney did not seek confirmation and consent from himself, 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 reason to doubt whether we should believe D's statement as such a victim. Let’s hear the testimony of nurturing in person (attached to the testimony of nurturing).
This is an open 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 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. (D attached testimony of nurturing)
Please think in common sense. If you're really the victim, I'll give you a false report, so why don't you ejaculate like that so that you never bet on the perpetrator 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 a victim who came out uncontaminated at the beginning of 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 disclose it immediately, but when Ki Sung-yong asked for "release immediately", he changed his words and suddenly said, "You have to file a lawsuit before revealing it in court." 'The 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 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. (D attached testimony)
Therefore, we have urged the other party's lawyer to disclose the truth by revealing it in front of the public rather than seeing only the other party's lawyers alone that 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. (The victim, D's direct junior high school junior E's upbringing testimony) The
victim, D, already knows that his middle school junior E has made good words to listen to each other that his middle school junior E intervened 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) Even
though the other party knows that E's words cannot be evidence, the other party should be criticized for presenting it as evidence.
6. In yesterday's broadcast, the other party said that it would be presented in a'lawsuit' 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'Confirmation 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 seek legal responsibility for the other party is raised on March 26, 2021.
2021. 3. 17.
Song
Sang-
yeop, lawyer of Seopyeong Law Firm,
the legal representative of Ki Sung-yong
(SBS Entertainment News reporter Kang Kyung-yoon)