Attorney Kang Shin-eop: “I provided sexual favors to Lee Jun-seok for the purpose of promoting the company.”
Ga Se-yeon: “The key is that Lee Jun-seok received hospitality by selling out President Park Geun-hye”
When the prosecution concluded that there was no substance to the ‘sexual entertainment suspicion’ against Rep. Lee Jun-seok of the New Reform Party, attorney Kang Shin-eop, who filed a complaint against Rep. Lee, filed an appeal with the prosecution.
Before filing an appeal to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office at 2:00 PM on the 11th, Attorney Kang met with reporters and stated the reason for the appeal, saying, “The prosecution is not an organization that makes the final judgment, but they have surrendered by giving Lee Jun-seok a free pass.” He continued, “They say there is no evidence, but there is direct evidence.”
Attorney Kang claimed, “In this case, the party who received the sexual favors, Kim Sung-jin, the CEO of iKAIST, lobbied Lee Jun-seok, provided sexual favors, gave gifts, and performed numerous formalities for the purpose of promoting his company by setting up a booth at a KAIST university event.” He added, “President Park Geun-hye then stayed at the booth for nine minutes. This success was achieved through Lee Jun-seok.”
Kim Se-ui, the representative of the YouTube channel Garosero Research Institute (Gaseyeon), who accompanied the appeal filing that day, said, “This case is not a simple prostitution crime,” and “The core of it is that then-Saenuri Party vice-chairman Lee Jun-seok received bribes, entertainment, and entertainment in exchange for selling out President Park Geun-hye.”
Attorney Kang and Ga Se-yeon plan to submit to the prosecution the investigation records of CEO Kim from the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office, the trial records from the Daejeon District Court, text messages exchanged between those involved in the suspicions, and recorded phone calls.
Earlier, on the 5th, the 1st Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (Chief Prosecutor Kim Seung-ho) decided not to prosecute Rep. Lee (due to insufficient evidence) on the false accusation charge, and included in the notice of non-indictment the content that it was difficult to acknowledge that Rep. Lee had received sexual entertainment.
The prosecution first examined the substance of the sexual entertainment allegations raised by Ga Se-yeon in order to determine whether Rep. Lee was innocent, and concluded that there was no evidence to support the entertainment allegations. This means that there was no problem with Rep. Lee suing Ga Se-yeon for defamation based on unclear facts.
The prosecution first determined that the allegations of sexual entertainment in July 2013 were without substance, citing the following: △ the witness’s statement was not direct evidence of Rep. Lee’s allegations and he continued to change the content of his statement; △ multiple witness statements denied any sexual entertainment; and △ the female sexual partner was unspecified.
In addition, regarding the suspicion of sexual entertainment in August 2013, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the suspicion as fact, as statements from key witnesses regarding the date of the sexual entertainment, location, route and method of movement to the location of the sexual entertainment were inconsistent and contradictory, and the hotel designated as the location of the sexual entertainment was currently closed, making it impossible to confirm the related information.
(Seoul = News 1)
-
- great
- 0dog
-
- I’m sad
- 0dog
-
- I’m angry
- 0dog
-
- I recommend it
- dog
Hot news right now
2024-09-13 05:22:36