[ad_1]
Following court testimony that “Kang Ki-jeong gave 50 million won to former Blue House political director,” Kim Bong-hyun, former chairman of Star Mobility, told the SBS reporter that there was a lobby for the powers of accusation and opposition. We have sent you an additional statement.
In a statement, former President 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 indictment in the Ministry of Justice or the investigation of prosecutors. .
Former President Kim’s side first refuted TV Chosun’s report yesterday (17), which noted that his position was fluctuating.
TV Chosun said yesterday: ‘A lawyer from the prosecutor’s office visited him and said he had to catch Chief Kang Ki-jung.’
Former President Kim’s side refuted this by saying, “The purpose of yesterday’s testimony is that there was no other person who came before yesterday’s trial, so as not to overturn the release of the letter in prison.”
Attorney A, a former prosecutor’s office, refuted former President Kim’s disclosure in a statement.
Lawyer A refuted through some outlets, saying: “When I was interviewed at the Suwon district attorney’s office in early May this year, former President Kim’s claim that A was not elected is not true.”
In response, former President Kim said: “The time when A was appointed from March last year to the end of last year,” and argued that Attorney A had not been appointed in May this year when he interviewed the Prosecutor’s Office of the Suwon District.
With regard to former President Kim’s disclosure that Attorney A “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 investigation into the drink and rhyme party in July last year. He also expressed his over-refuted position with the intention that there is no point in entertaining him in preparation for the Lime investigation.
Former President Kim argued: “Attorney A raises a question of credibility, saying there was a period of time between the alcohol use and the Lime investigation, but it was not bad because he stated that in the disclosure letter, ‘If we believe a Lime research team later. ‘
Furthermore, he added that it will be revealed through ongoing surveillance or investigations into who was at the drinking party.
Regarding the fact that Woori Bank announced that he would review the legal actions against him, which raised suspicions of lobbying, former President Kim said: “Woori Bank was already mentioned in the transcript published by comedian Kim Han-seok, who it suffered damage from the investment in lime. That’s why we disclosed the name Woori Bank. ”
Former President Kim added: “Some outlets speak as if they are going to continue exposing themselves, but I have no intention of doing so,” he added, adding, “I will reveal the facts accurately through ongoing surveillance or investigation.”
Meanwhile, it was confirmed that the Ministry of Justice yesterday carried out an inspection investigation by former President Kim.
Former President Kim’s lawyer said: “Yesterday I went to the Ministry of Justice to investigate the content of the release of the letter in prison.”
(Hereinafter, the full text of the statement sent to SBS by Bong-Hyun Kim)
1. Regarding the previous TV Chosun article yesterday, the purpose of my testimony was to say that the prosecutor’s question did not have the effect of asking someone else to come and change the statement before the witness newspaper in President Lee’s trial Sang-ho. I am not saying this for the purpose of articles.
2. With respect to Attorney A, although Attorney A disclosed his arguments, the content of the statement in my position is said to say that he visited the Suwon District Attorney’s Office (not the lead attorney) in early May 2020 (not the lead attorney) was wrong. 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 research on drinking and rhyming. Based on what I wrote in my article, I wrote that “if I do a rhyme investigation team” No. I think it will be revealed through ongoing surveillance or investigation etc on who was at the drinking party.
3. Regarding Woori Bank, I saw an article saying that Woori Bank is reviewing legal action against my charge, but when my charge was published, if the name had not been previously disclosed to the media, it was anonymized. In the case, it was shipped as is. However, in the early morning article on the day of my admission, the suspicion of pressuring opposition personnel had already been revealed to the media through transcripts, so I thought Woori Bank might name it as it is. Likewise, the veracity of the case will be revealed through ongoing surveillance or investigation, as well as the dispute with Attorney A.
4. Some articles seem as if I will continue to disclose, but I have not disclosed such thoughts and would like to disclose the facts in accordance with procedure through ongoing surveillance or investigation.
