According to OSEN, the accuser, identified only as A, issued a statement claiming that Song Ha Yoon’s legal representatives had mischaracterized the status of the criminal case.
The controversy centers on an earlier statement by the actress’ legal team, Jieum Law Firm, that although the police initially decided not to postpone the case, Song Ha Yoon challenged that decision through due legal process. The company also said that following an additional investigation, police found sufficient basis for charges including defamation, intimidation and obstruction of business, and referred the case to prosecutors with an opinion recommending prosecution.
However, A strongly denied this characterization. “The claim that, after the additional investigation, the police acknowledged the charges of defamation, intimidation and obstruction of business and referred the case for indictment is simply not true.”
A explained that the case was only forwarded to prosecutors because Song Ha Yoon’s side opposed the police’s original decision not to refer the case.
According to A, prosecutors subsequently requested further investigations, after which the police presented the results of those additional investigations to the prosecutor’s office. A stressed that this does not mean that the police independently changed their original conclusion or formally decided to recommend prosecution. The accuser also said he confirmed with the investigating officer that the police simply returned the results of the requested additional investigations to prosecutors rather than issuing a new decision recommending the indictment.
Song Ha Yoon’s representatives previously 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 state of the investigation.
The agency stated that:
- Initially the police decided not to postpone the case.
- Song Ha Yoon legally opposed this decision.
- An additional investigation was conducted over several months.
- Police ultimately acknowledged charges of defamation, intimidation and obstruction of business and referred the case to prosecutors with a recommendation for prosecution.
Questions about the timing later emerged 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 date previously provided was incorrect. The legal team later clarified that following the prosecutor’s request for additional investigation, the police completed the additional investigation and forwarded the case to the Cheonan branch of the prosecutor’s 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 argues that the additional investigation led the police to forward the case with an opinion supporting some criminal charges, the accuser insists that the police merely complied with the prosecutor’s request for further investigation and did not independently determine that the suspect should be prosecuted.
Sources: Nate News
