Yoo Ah-in's side "Request for summons and change of attendance date"

While actor Yoo Ah-in did not appear at the second summons investigation, the law office released an official statement.

On the 11th, lawyer Yoo Ah-in's lawyer, Law Office Infinity, said, "Mr. Um Hong-sik was notified last week by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's drug investigation unit of a request to appear today at 10 am for investigation. In response, the lawyer responded to the 'rules regarding publicity of police investigation cases, etc.' “Based on this, we requested a private summons, and the police also agreed to this,” he said.

He continued, "On May 10th, the day before the investigation, there was a press article reporting that Mr. Eom Hong-sik was expected to be investigated the next day (May 11th). Accordingly, the lawyer inquired with the police whether the attendance schedule had been made public, but the police He added, “We have never disclosed the date of attendance and, as a matter of principle, it will be held privately, so we expressed our position to attend as is.”

The law office said, "The lawyer believed that the non-disclosure principle would be applied as confirmed by the police and wanted to appear as scheduled, but after hearing additional media reports to the effect that 'We have confirmed from the police that Mr. Eom Hong-sik is scheduled to appear this morning' and the situation of reporters on the scene, “We have clearly confirmed that the attendance schedule has been made public,” he said emphatically.

In addition, "Even in a situation where the attendance schedule was already made public as above, Mr. Eom Hong-sik wanted to participate in the investigation, and the lawyer responded that even if the situation where the schedule had already been made public was unavoidable, it was possible, such as access through other routes, to comply with the principle of private summons." We requested that action be taken, but the police did not accept it. In addition, the circumstances are unknown, but even the additional consultation process between the police and the lawyer was reported in real time, and the article was distorted as if Eom Hong-sik was refusing to appear simply because of the reporters. “It’s being reported,” he said.

The law office said, "According to Article 4 of the rules on public announcement of police investigation cases, etc., 'In order to protect human rights, such as the honor and privacy of those involved in the case, and maintain the security of the investigation contents, the contents of the investigation case must be made public or by other means. According to Article 13 of the above rules, 'the head of a police station shall not allow the investigative process, such as summons, investigation, seizure/ search, arrest, detention, etc., to be filmed, recorded, or broadcast by the media or other people. In addition, according to Article 20 of the Ministry of Justice's directive, 'Regulations on Public Notice of Criminal Cases', it is stipulated that 'Attendance information, such as attendance date and time, and return time, of persons involved in the case shall not be disclosed.' “He explained.

At the same time, "The police's summons to Mr. Eom Hong-sik was in fact a public summons, so we inevitably requested the police to discuss changing the date of attendance. Even during the summons process last March, the police announced that it was a private summons, but in fact, it was a public summons, so the defense attorney “The defense attorney is deeply concerned that the same situation occurred again during the current summons, despite having expressed his intention to protest once,” he said.

The law office said, “In the future, Mr. Eom Hong-sik will respond to the police’s request to appear and be investigated faithfully.”The following is the full official position of Infinity's legal office, Yoo Ah-in's lawyer.This is Infinity, a law firm representing Um Hong-sik (stage name: Yoo Ah-in).

Last week, Mr. Eom Hong-sik was notified by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Narcotics Investigation Unit that he was requested to appear for investigation at 10 am today (May 11, 2023). In response to this, the defense lawyer requested a private subpoena based on the 'Rules on public information regarding police investigation cases, etc.', and the police also agreed to this.

However, on May 10, 2023, the day before the investigation, there was a press article reporting that Mr. Eom Hong-sik was expected to be investigated the next day (May 11), and the defense lawyer inquired with the police whether the attendance schedule had been made public. , the police have never disclosed the date of attendance and expressed their position that the attendance will be held as is, as it will be conducted privately as per principle.

Accordingly, the lawyer believed that the non-disclosure principle would be applied as confirmed by the police and wanted to appear as scheduled, but after hearing additional media reports to the effect that 'We have confirmed from the police that Mr. Eom Hong-sik is scheduled to appear this morning' and the situation of reporters at the scene, he scheduled his attendance. It has been clearly confirmed that this has been made public.

Even in the situation where the attendance schedule was already made public as above, Mr. Eom Hong-sik wanted to participate in the investigation, and the lawyer responded that even if the situation where the schedule had already been made public was unavoidable, he would take possible measures, such as access through other routes, to comply with the principle of private summons. I requested that he be taken away, but the police did not accept it. In addition, although the circumstances are unknown, even the additional consultation process between the police and the defense attorney is reported in real time, and the article is distorted as if Eom Hong-sik was refusing to attend simply because of the reporters.

According to Article 4 of the 'Rules on Public Notice of Police Investigation Cases, etc.', 'In order to protect the human rights such as reputation and privacy of those involved in the case and maintain the security of the investigation contents, the contents of the investigation case, etc. must not be made public or disclosed in any other way. 'No', and according to Article 13 of the above rules, 'the head of a police station must ensure that the investigative process, such as summons, investigation, seizure/search, arrest, detention, etc., is not filmed, recorded , or broadcast by the media or other people. It is stipulated that 'must be done.' In addition, according to Article 20 of the Ministry of Justice's directive, 'Regulations on Public Notice of Criminal Cases', it is stipulated that 'Attendance information, such as attendance date and return time, of persons involved in the case shall not be disclosed. .'

Therefore, the police's summons to Mr. Eom Hong-sik was effectively a public summons, so we inevitably requested the police to discuss changing the date of attendance. During the summons last March, the police already announced that it was a private summons, but in fact, it was a public summons, and although the defense attorney expressed his intention to protest once, the defense attorney expressed deep concern that the same situation occurred again during the current summons. It's a bar.

In the future, Mr. Eom Hong-sik will be faithfully investigated in response to the police's request to appear.

Kang Min-kyung, Ten Asia reporter kkk39@tenasia.co.kr