◆Jeongbin Seo> In fact, from the lawyer’s perspective, the content of this conversation was somewhat uncomfortable. The fact that the victim demands a large settlement from the perpetrator cannot be questioned in fact. In the case of settlements, the amount is not set uniformly, so the settlement amount may be higher or lower depending on the circumstances of the victim or offender. In particular, in the case of celebrities, there is a problem of criminal punishment when such a problem occurs, but due to the burden of public opinion, there are often cases where the settlement amount is set higher than usual and the settlement amount is agreed upon. In any case, the settlement amount was set because the interests of the parties were aligned. So we can’t say anything.
However, looking at the conversation about this incident, it mentions quite specifically the disadvantages that may arise when an incident occurs. In addition, the fact that Son Heung-min was not a party to the incident, even talking about his family relationship, suggested an amount of 500 million won. When I saw this, I thought that although I could claim my rights as a victim, I thought it might be in a way that goes beyond what is socially acceptable. Although it is not part of the transcript, in the conversation, director Son Woong-jeong’s lawyer said,
There was also an offer to secretly pay 100 million won if the settlement was reached with 500 million won. Strictly speaking, these are suggestions that could lead to criminal issues.
. So, when I saw these details, I thought that the amount of the child’s settlement or the way it was presented was a bit excessive.
◇Anchor> When looking at the legal issue, wouldn’t it be a problem if you say I will secretly give the lawyer a certain amount if he accepts the amount of settlement money you mentioned?
◆Seo Jeongbin> That’s right. It is a problem that violates the professional ethics of lawyers, but in the end, setting the settlement amount at 500 million won, secretly taking only 400 million won, and giving 100 million won to the lawyer in charge could ultimately be a fraud or breach of trust for the client. Since this is a problem, these points appear to be criminally problematic proposals.
◇Anchor>
The very statement of this proposal raises questions about the purity of the demand for settlement money.
◆Jeongbin Seo> I think you can see it that way.
◇Anchor> Then, the parents are countering that they said this because they were angry because they talked about an agreement before making a proper apology, but they are framing him as the person who demanded a large amount of money, and now they are claiming secondary harm. So, the transcript has also been released. Are there any parts that can be seen as secondary harm?
◆Jeongbin Seo> In my personal opinion, there is some question as to whether this can really be considered a secondary offense. Until now, opinions on the settlement process have been conflicting, and now Woong-Jeong Son’s side is refuting the victim’s claims about the settlement process by releasing the transcript. Just because the claims made during that process and the recording were made public, there is considerable doubt as to whether this can be considered a secondary offense. In particular, when looking at the content, as I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of comments that could be problematic, and unlike the victim’s claim that the amount was simply emotional and that it was not serious, the transcript shows specific risk factors. When I see that the amount is mentioned and the amount is repeatedly discussed, it is very questionable whether this can be considered a secondary harm just because it was made public after seeing it.
◇Anchor> Rather, it was an opportunity to understand the situation. Are you saying that it can be viewed this way?
◆Seo Jeongbin> That’s right.
Excerpt from the conversation: Lee Seon, Digital News Team Editor
#YTranscript
※ ‘Your report becomes news’
[kakaotalk]
YTN
Search and add channels
[Phone] 02-398-8585
[mail]
social
@
ytn.co.kr