Attorney Ko Sang-rok, legal representative for actor Kim Soo-hyun, responded strongly again to the second statement from the family of the late Kim Sae-ron, expressing his position. He said the controversial wording was "a term inappropriate for a lawyer to use," while also emphasizing, "this is not an ordinary civil dispute but a situation of fighting a large-scale, public-targeted fraudulent cybercrime."
In a personal statement on the 28th regarding the family's second statement, Attorney Ko opened by saying, "I am not fighting ordinary people. This matter is the late person's mother directly stepping forward for 'Gaseyeon season 2.'" He continued, "People's psychology of thinking 'surely a person wouldn't do such a thing' was artfully exploited to make a false narrative seem like the truth, and with fabricated evidence and distorted stories they drove an innocent victim to death; I am carrying on the toughest fight to protect my client from that crime."
He also addressed the controversial expressions such as 'manic-depressive Nammi-sae.' Attorney Ko explained that the phrase arose during his criticism of the wording and context of the family's publicly released writing while he had not acknowledged that the author of the piece was Kim Sae-ron. He said, "The expression itself is indeed a term inappropriate for a lawyer to use publicly," but added, "in confronting not an ordinary dispute but a heinous, large-scale public-targeted cybercrime, expressions that are intuitive and resonate easily were needed in addition to polite and dignified language."
However, he drew a line, saying he did not intend to place such expressions in official statements or through channels that would become news. Attorney Ko said, "I did not post those expressions on the YouTube board I use for external statements," and pointed out, "the family found the thread where I was communicating, pulled up those words and distributed them as a second statement, and as a result those expressions appeared in numerous news headlines." He added, "I believe this began because they felt confident in the morality fight. In that case, as a lawyer and as a person whose dignity and character were attacked, I had no choice but to respond."
He went on to argue that the core issue of the controversy has been distorted. Attorney Ko said, "The question is no longer whether Kim Sae-ron 'spent a troubled underage period unable to live without men'; what remains is who is responsible for making the public perceive it that way," and added, "I have no intention of ceding the initiative in that argument. That is necessary to protect my dignity and character and to fully rescue my client from being a victim of crime."
Finally, Attorney Ko closed his writing by speaking bluntly to the family, saying, "Think a bit before you act."
Earlier, it was reported that the late Kim Sae-ron's mother filed complaints against Attorney Ko with the Korean Bar Association and the Seoul Bar Association.
On the 27th, Kim Sae-ron's mother opened her second statement by saying, "After much deliberation I released a statement yesterday, but what came back was Attorney Ko Sang-rok's mockery and derision."
She strongly raised the issue, saying Attorney Ko used insulting expressions on social media targeting the late Kim Sae-ron such as "manic-depressive crazy person," "emotionally unstable Nammi-sae," and "underage Nammi-sae." She also alleged he made sarcastic remarks about the family such as "they gave the deceased's honor to the dogs" and "they're miraculously protecting her honor."
The mother said, "Today I filed complaints related to discipline with the Korean Bar Association and the Seoul Bar Association."
Currently, the late Kim Sae-ron's family and Kim Soo-hyun's side are simultaneously undergoing investigations and legal battles over whether there was underage dating and allegations of evidence fabrication. With both sides' statements, additional explanations and disputes over phrasing continuing, the case is gradually spreading into a tangle of "disputes over the truth" and "disputes over morality." The public's attention is ultimately focused on the results that investigative authorities will produce and the court's judgment.
[Photo] OSEN DB
[OSEN]