On the 22nd, Hwang Ui-jo’s legal representative, Dae-hwan, a law firm, said in a statement, “The imaging device used in the relationship was a general mobile phone used by Hwang, and he did not have to hide it and filmed it in a clearly visible place, and the woman clearly recognized it and responded to the relationship.”
“It is true that all the videos were deleted under agreement in the middle of the relationship, but after that, we continued to date for more than a year,” he said. “The woman in question claims it is illegal because there is no explicit agreement, but it is questionable whether it will be viewed as a so-called ‘hidden camera’ if the filming and deletion are repeated under mutual recognition of the parties.”
“The other woman is a public figure in broadcasting and is even married, so she refrained from officially responding to prevent the exposure of the woman’s identity as much as possible and tried to reveal the truth through strict investigation by investigative agencies,” he said. “As reports that seemed to make Hwang Ui-jo’s crime a fait accompli were circulated, and the woman’s unilateral position was misled as if it were true, so she made a call from a defensive perspective.”
However, it was pointed out that Hwang Ui-jo’s side could cause secondary harm by disclosing some of the other woman’s personal information. Earlier, the police found circumstantial evidence that Hwang illegally filmed sex videos and summoned him as a suspect on the 18th to investigate him. The victim claimed, “The victim briefly dated Hwang Ui-jo in the past, but he did not agree to shoot the sensitive video and requested it to be deleted.” 토토사이트
Among them, A, a woman who spread Hwang’s personal life video and threatened him, was found to be Hwang’s brother-in-law. A is known to have served as Hwang’s real brother and accompanied Hwang on his overseas business trip, effectively serving as a manager.
Lane Ochoa