Both sides argued over the grounds and the period of his ban from entering South Korea and whether the guidelines for Yoo Seung Joon to receive his visa to enter the country should follow the rules of the Immigration Control Act of South Korea (ICA).
LA consul general's side stated, "The reason that Yoo Seung Joon's visa issuance was rejected is we discovered he received an entry ban from the Korea Immigration Service. The ban is typically five years but in reality, there is no additional limit [to the ban], and we rejected [the issuance] because we did not receive a request to lift the ban."
Yoo Seung Joon's attorney rebutted, "At the time we did not hear the specific reason for the refusal of visa issuance, and though we wanted to know for certain what exact processes resulted in [the refusal], we only got the response that they 'followed the rules of the ICA.' Even if the decision was made based on the rules of the ICA, we requested an answer on why and how an entry ban that was issued in 2002 became 'permanent.'"
Yoo Seung Joon's side further argued, "Yoo Seung Joon had no intention or motive to evade military service. The media is what gave people the idea that [Yoo Seung Joon] was trying to evade military service."
The courts selected the witnesses after taking both sides' arguments into consideration and set the next plea date for May 23.
SHARE
Log in to comment