Both sides still continue to fight for the final investigation result. the informer said they would fight to the end.
This is a rebuttal to Park Cho-rong side’s statement on the 22nd of last month that “As a result of the investigation, the informant was found to have threatened us with false information, and it was decided to forward it to the prosecution with an opinion of the prosecutor.”
A said on Dec 2nd, “Among the crimes of defamation and intimidation by false facts that Park Cho-rong’s side accused us of, we were not forward to the prosecution for defamation by false facts as there was none of the defamation using false fact here. The crime of intimidation was sent to the prosecution with an opinion of the prosecutor, but it was revealed that we did not threaten them using false fact.”
A also attached the official decision to drop the charge of defamation against them, which specifically contains the police’s decision to acquit A.
The police judged that Mr. A‘s defamation charges were “no charges due to insufficient evidence.” In this regard, the police explained, “The truth is not determined whether A’s report that he was assaulted by Park Cho-rong and her party in high school is false, and Park Cho-rong’s claim alone is insufficient to admit the suspect’s claim, and there is no other evidence to reverse the suspect’s claim.”
In addition, the police judged that B, one of Park Cho-rong‘s party, remembered that he did not assault A or that he could not explain the situation in detail at the time, so it was judged to be in favor of Park Cho-rong.
Earlier, B is the person who posted a rebuttal on the online community denying A‘s revelation of the school violence.
“When the issue of school violence became public, I just wanted to receive an apology from Park Cho-rong,” A said adding, “I will also hold Park Cho-rong and her accuser legally responsible and take strong action after she decided to hide behind her large agency, informing the public of the wrong information without a sincere apology.”
A then said, “We will also define some netizens’ excessive criticism as a secondary offense and hold them legally responsible.”