On December 8, A Pink member Chorong's legal representative issued a new statement of refutal, after the initial accuser 'A' claimed that Chorong's side was lying about the police investigation results.
Previously, Chorong's legal representative confirmed in a formal statement that the accuser 'A', who first raised school bullying claims against Chorong in March of this year, has been forward to prosecution for "threatening the client based on false information."
However, in response to the statement, accuser 'A' spoke up again and argued that the police did not indicate that the claims they made were false. According to 'A', the police have forwarded her case to prosecution solely for threatening, but they were not able to conclude that the school bullying accusations were false due to lack of evidence.
On December 8, Chorong's legal representative responded to 'A's latest claims with, "We have recently confirmed that the accuser 'A' has filed an additional lawsuit for defamation of character and for the spread of false information against our client."
Chorong's side continued, "We would like to emphasize that there was no false information in our previous statement. The police investigation report clearly indicated that 'the accuser took advantage of the numerous school bullying cases within the entertainment industry to threaten [Chorong] with mass emails, which contained false claims about the client's private life. The accuser attempted to force the client into retirement while threatening to publicize this information. Furthermore, the accuser sent content such as edited recordings and other 'evidence' which had little relation to the claims made. As such, the police determined that the accuser 'A' is guilty of threatening based on false information."
Finally, Chorong's side stated that they are currently waiting for the results of the most recent lawsuit raised by accuser 'A', and assured that they will reveal a detailed account of events once all police investigations have come to a close.
Why is Park Chorong continually named yet 'accuser A' allowed to remain anonymous - that doesn't seem fair to me and shouldn't be allowed.