Statement by Lawyer Choi Jiwu on Behalf of Kim Geon-hee
“Store the packaging as it is without discarding it”
“Criticism of ‘cutting off the tail’ is groundless”, ‘[Edaily Baek Jua Reporter] Kim Geon-hee, the wife of President Yoon Suk-yeol, has expressed her position that it is true that her staff was instructed to return the luxury handbag in question and that they will actively cooperate with the investigation by law enforcement agencies. At the same time, she drew a line stating that the criticism of ‘cutting off the tail’ from some quarters is groundless.’,
,
,
|
, ‘Lawyer Choi Jiwu, representing Mrs. Kim, released a statement on the 16th stating, “I hope that speculative or malicious articles will be refrained from”.’
,
, ‘After it was revealed that an administrative official assisting Mrs. Kim failed to return the luxury handbag on the day Pastor Choi Jae-young gifted it to her and received instructions from Mrs. Kim to return it during a recent prosecution investigation, prompting criticism of ‘cutting off the tail’ from the political circles, an official position was taken.’,
,
, ‘Lawyer Choi explained, “Madam instructed the administrative officer not to return it immediately as it could hurt someone’s feelings, so to return it later without causing any ill feelings,” and added, “So the packaging was kept intact without discarding it.”‘,
,
, ‘She continued, “The Dior bag is being preserved unused, which proves that there was no intention to use it, and there was an intention to return it.”‘,
,
, ‘Lawyer Choi stated, “In the case of ‘cutting off the tail,’ it is shifting the blame to someone else to avoid responsibility. This incident is not a matter where someone else can be blamed due to the lack of criminal punishment regulations. The term ‘cutting off the tail’ is groundless criticism.”‘,
,
, ‘She further said, “Avoiding moral criticism is only possible early in the case,” and added, “Given that there has been significant moral criticism without any explanation or defense, there is no reason to make false explanations now.”‘,
,
, ‘Lawyer Choi noted, “The exclusive article related to the return instruction was not a clarification article requested by the defense.” She explained, “The defense refrained from disclosing contentious issues and only publicly disclosed matters that could be proven with evidence.”‘,
,
, ‘She emphasized, “We actively cooperated with the investigation and will continue to do so in the future.”‘,
,
, ‘Pastor Choi’s side has claimed that on September 13 last year, they met Mrs. Kim at the Kobana Contents office in Seocho-gu and gifted her a luxury handbag worth 3 million won.’,
,
, ‘The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office is currently investigating a case where Mrs. Kim and President Yoon are accused of violating the Anti-Corruption Act and receiving bribes.’,
,
, ‘The administrative official, while testifying as a reference witness, reportedly stated that she received return instructions from Mrs. Kim but forgot to do so. It was reported that he said, “If it is returned immediately, it could hurt someone’s feelings, so Pastor Choi, who resides in the United States, instructed that it be returned when he is in Korea.”‘,
,
, ‘Mrs. Kim’s stance is that she became aware that the luxury handbag had not been returned only after receiving a fact-checking request from Seoul’s Voice about two weeks before November last year.’,
,
, ‘The administrative official testified that the bag was moved from the Kobana Contents office to the Kwanjeo residence in Hannam-dong, and after the fact that it was not returned to the President’s office, it was transferred to the prosecution.’,
,
,