Park Chorong / Photo = Hankyung DB
While Apink’s Park Cho-rong refuted the allegations of school violence, a classmate who first revealed it said, “I have filed a police complaint for defamation based on false facts.”
On the morning of the 8th, Mr. A, who claimed to be a party to the Park Chorong school assault case, told Hankyung.com, “Park Chorong maliciously reports articles containing false facts and continues to inflict secondary and tertiary harm against me.” The confirmation of the complaint filed with the Gangnam Police Station was released.
Lawyer Daemyung Kim Soon-yong, the legal representative of Mr. A, said in an official statement, “The Cheongju Cheongwon Police Station investigated the case of Park Chorong suing A, and on November 12, Mr. After making the decision, there is a fact that Mr. A’s charges against Park Chorong were sent to the Cheongju District Prosecutors’ Office with an opinion of transfer.”
He continued, “In the investigation results regarding defamation and intimidation, Park Chorong’s representative mentioned only those cases of intimidation that were beneficial to them in the statement, saying, ‘The police investigation result shows that the informant is false. He was sent to the prosecution on charges of intimidation by the
Lawyer Kim said, “Nowhere in the sentence of the Cheongju Petition Police’s transfer of Mr. A to ‘A’ was found to be a threat based on false facts, the above statement of Park Chorong’s agent is not true, It is just that someone arbitrarily claimed it under the guise of the police.”
If Mr. A was sent for intimidation based on ‘false facts’, it should have been forwarded to the prosecution for ‘false facts’ defamation, which has the same factual relationship.
In addition, Mr. A’s side had Park Cho-rong’s law firm to issue a statement, saying, “The police over 7 months have spent about 7 months with the client and the informant, as well as the acquaintances who witnessed the scene. , tried to reveal the full story of this case clearly and clearly through various investigations, such as verifying the statements of acquaintances who knew the relationship between the client and the informant. As a result, the police judged that the allegation of intimidating the client with false facts, such as maliciously edited transcripts or photos of content irrelevant to the content, was acknowledged by the informant under the pretext of school violence, which was a social issue at the time. , the case has been forwarded to the prosecution with the opinion of indictment’, as if the police had announced the results of the investigation.
A’s side said, “The police said that they would make every effort until the end to ensure that the informant bears a heavy responsibility, while even reporting that the police had confirmed the statement to acquaintances who witnessed the scene, as well as acquaintances who knew the relationship between the client and the informant. “Park Chorong’s side reported to the media that they would hold him accountable for continuing to threaten Mr. A, and the informant side also states that it will respond to Park’s actions so far in accordance with the law and in principle.” he emphasized.
Person A revealed that she had filed a second complaint against Park Chorong. /Photo = provided by Mr. A
Park Chorong’s side is known to have filed a criminal complaint with the Gangnam Police Station for defamation and attempted coercion against Mr. A. Mr. A again filed a defamation-related complaint while filing a counterclaim for innocence.
Previously, Taerim, a law firm in charge of Park Chorong’s legal representative, said on the 22nd of last month, “As a result of the investigation, it was decided that the informant was charged with making threats based on false facts, and the decision was made to be forwarded to the prosecution with the opinion of indictment.”
At the time, Park Chorong’s side said, “Taking the opportunity that the suspected informant is pouring out suspicions of school violence in the entertainment industry around March 2021, a large number of reporters from the entertainment and social departments were sent a large-scale report email containing false facts about the client’s private life. I sent it to the company and informed the client of this fact and encouraged him to retire from the entertainment industry.”
Person A pointed out that Park Chorong’s side did not specify in the statement that the charge of defamation based on false information was not appealed.
Regarding this, Mr. A said, “Park Chorong said that the charge of ‘intimidation based on false facts’ was established and sent to the prosecution with an opinion of indictment, but this is not true. The charge of defamation based on false facts was dismissed with ‘no charges’, and the charge of intimidation was forwarded to the prosecution with an opinion of indictment, but it was revealed that he did not threaten with false facts.”
In response to Mr. A’s rebuttal, Park Chorong said, “We are also sorry that they are claiming only matters that are favorable to them in the non-dismissal decision other than the charge of intimidation.” It was concluded that it could not be verified. In a situation where the authenticity cannot be confirmed, the decision to disapprove of the case was merely decided in accordance with the criminal law principle that the accuser (Chorong Park) is responsible for proving the charges.”
Park Chorong’s side issued an official statement on the 2nd and said, “After a long police investigation, Mr. A was found guilty of intimidating a client based on false information related to his personal life, and has been sent to the prosecution with an opinion of indictment. There is no criminal procedure fact,” he said again.
He continued, “A’s side has been accused of intimidation and sent to the prosecutor’s office. We will do our best to the end so that the legal responsibility for the intimidation can be heavy.”
By Kim Ye-rang, reporter at Hankyung.com yesrang@hankyung.com
