G-Dragon claims ‘Drug Acquittal,’ raises questions about police investigation

Kwon Ji-yong (G-Dragon), who is under investigation for ‘drug allegations,’ maintains his innocence.

Despite the police not requesting his presence for questioning, he voluntarily attended the investigation after continuous requests.

He submitted hair and nail samples, even though there was no search warrant issued for a drug-related seizure. This behavior is generally considered inconsistent with claiming innocence.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that Channel A secured the statement of an entertainment venue manager, known to have testified about Kwon Ji-yong to the police.

According to Channel A News on the 10th, the entertainment venue manager, known to have a ‘drug-related history,’ made the following statement during police investigation:

“In December of last year, I found ‘suspicious packaging’ in the restroom of the establishment that G-Dragon visited. His subsequent behavior was also strange.”

The suspect’s statement, without any tangible evidence, led to the criminal investigation of a person with a previous drug-related history, raising doubts about the police’s investigation itself. People question whether it is reasonable to conduct an investigation that involves travel bans for a prominent celebrity based solely on statements without clear evidence.

The fact that the entertainment venue manager has a history of drug-related offenses, is currently a subject of investigation, and extorted 300 million won from actor Lee Sun-kyun, is also causing shock, as these aspects were not taken into consideration.

On the other hand, Kim Soo-hyun, an attorney from the law firm Kwon Chambers, who is representing Kwon Ji-yong as of the 10th, released a statement directly refuting the police’s internal claim that Kwon Ji-yong shaved his entire body to destroy evidence.

Kwon Ji-yong’s legal representative stated, “The claim that he shaved his entire body is a clear falsehood.”

The attorney emphasized, “This case had the communication warrant rejected due to lack of evidence by the court, and no search warrant for hair and other items was issued.” He further added, “Despite this, to quickly clarify the truth and dispel suspicions, he voluntarily attended the investigation, actively cooperating with the investigation by voluntarily submitting not only urine and hair but also fingernails and toenails.”