According to OSEN, the accuser, identified only as A, released a statement arguing that Song Ha Yoon‘s legal representatives had mischaracterized the status of the criminal case.
The dispute centers on a previous statement from the actress’s legal team, Law Firm Jieum, which claimed that although police initially decided not to refer the case, Song Ha Yoon challenged that decision through the proper legal process. The firm further stated that, following a supplementary investigation, police found sufficient grounds for charges including defamation, intimidation, and obstruction of business, and referred the case to prosecutors with an opinion recommending indictment.
However, A strongly denied that characterization. “The statement claiming that, after the supplementary investigation, police recognized the charges of defamation, intimidation, and obstruction of business and referred the case for indictment is simply not true.”
A explained that the case had been forwarded to prosecutors only because Song Ha Yoon’s side objected to the police’s original decision not to refer the case.
According to A, prosecutors subsequently requested additional investigation, after which police submitted the results of that supplementary investigation back to the prosecution. A emphasized that this did not mean police had independently changed their original conclusion or formally decided to recommend prosecution. The accuser further claimed to have confirmed with the investigating officer that police merely returned the requested supplementary investigation results to prosecutors rather than issuing a new decision recommending indictment.
Earlier, Song Ha Yoon’s representatives provided OSEN with what they described as a March 19 referral decision, arguing that recent reports citing the original non-referral decision no longer reflected the current status of the investigation.
The agency stated that:
- Police initially decided not to refer the case.
- Song Ha Yoon legally objected to that decision.
- A supplementary investigation was conducted over several months.
- Police ultimately acknowledged allegations of defamation, intimidation, and obstruction of business and referred the case to prosecutors with a recommendation for indictment.
Questions later emerged regarding the timeline after observers pointed out that if the objection had been filed on March 19, the case could not have been referred to prosecutors on the same date.
In response, Song Ha Yoon’s side acknowledged that the previously provided date had been incorrect. The legal team later clarified that, following prosecutors’ request for supplementary investigation, police completed the additional inquiry and forwarded the case to the Cheonan Branch of the Prosecutors’ Office on June 16, expressing the opinion that some allegations were supported.
With conflicting accounts now presented by both sides, the legal dispute remains ongoing. While Song Ha Yoon’s legal team maintains that the supplementary investigation resulted in police forwarding the case with an opinion supporting certain criminal charges, the accuser insists that police merely complied with prosecutors’ request for additional investigation and did not independently determine that the suspect should be prosecuted.
Sources: 네이트 뉴스
You must be logged in to post a comment.