Chung Kyung-shim’s appeals court also “innocent” strategy… “Abuse of prosecution rights to secure citation PC”

Chung Kyung-shim, a professor at Dongyang University, who is being tried on charges such as irregularities in the entrance examination for children, announced on the 15th that “we will keep all of the arguments raised in the first trial” at the first trial preparation date for the appeal trial. It means that he will use the “all innocent” strategy that he used during the investigation and trial of the first trial. The prosecution also requested to the court that the part where Professor Jeong was found not guilty in the first trial required a rehearing.

The trial took place about three months after Professor Jeong was sentenced to four years in prison at the first trial on December 23, last year, and was imprisoned. Professor Jeong did not appear in court because it was a preparatory date when the accused was not obligated to attend.

Prof. Jeong’s first preparation period, held at the hearing of the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 1-2 (Deputy Judge Um Sang-pil, Sim Dam, Lee Seung-ryun), took about two hours. After hearing the reasons for the appeal of the prosecution and lawyers, the two sides introduced the requested evidence, and proceeded in the order of coordinating the hearing procedure at a later date. Nine prosecutors were present on the prosecution’s side, and 10 lawyers on the side of Professor Jeong also appeared.

First of all, the prosecution pointed out the innocence part in the first trial for reasons of appeal. A representative example is the “Fund Management Status Report in the 2nd Quarter of 2019” related to the alleged corruption of private equity funds by former Justice Minister Cho Kook’s family. This is the report that former Justice Minister Cho Kook explained the suspicion of a family fund when he was a candidate and said, “I received a report from a private equity fund manager,” and said, “Because it is a blind fund, I can’t tell you what to invest in, and I can’t know where I invested.”

The prosecution argued that the report itself was made in preparation for the hearing, and that it should be regarded as being made by Professor Jeong instructing the employees of’Korink PE’ who operated the family investment, and that the crime of forgery of evidence should be applied.

The prosecution even criticized Cho, saying, “The explanation of the motherland is a false explanation that the President, who is a personnel prosecutor, is also deceived.” He said, “In the process of such a report, there was a repetitive teacher behavior by Professor Jeong,” he said, and that he would explain this in detail in a later trial.

The prosecution also argued that the sentencing was unfair. The prosecutor criticized Professor Jeong, saying, “We attempted to pass on education with the privilege that only the elite class can enjoy, and the manipulation of (specs) exceeded the limit of the law.” Former Minister Cho also mentioned again. The prosecutor said, “Please be sure to take into account that the accomplice (the motherland) refers to crayfish, crucian carp, and frog, and undermined the fairness of the system, which most parents believed.”

It can be interpreted as criticizing the part of former Minister Cho’s comment on Twitter in the past, “Let’s make a happy world even if we live as crucians, frogs, and crayfish even if we don’t have dragons in the stream.”

On the other hand, Professor Chung’s lawyers debated in part as part of the unacceptable part of the ruling in the first trial: ▶ Private equity-related charges ▶ Evidence-killing teachers-related charges ▶ Entrance examination corruption-related charges.

The lawyer started arguing with the intention that the suspicion of a’family fund’ was unjust. “This case started with a suspicion of private equity investment, but there was no such part in the part convicted in the first trial,” said the lawyer. “In reality, only the stock investment part of Professor Jeong or his younger brother is being discussed.” It is intended that the allegations of violation of the Capital Markets Act or the violation of the Real Name Financial Law recognized in the first trial have nothing to do with the’family fund’ or’power-type corruption’ that was the clues to the investigation. He said, “It is difficult to understand that it is difficult to understand that it is difficult to understand and should be corrected in the current courts hundreds of years after the modern criminal law to dig up and prosecute everything in this case with a warrant for the first time.”

Regarding the most alleged irregularities in the entrance examination, he strongly criticized the first trial decision itself as “a typical case of confirmation bias.” “For example, when there was a convenience store robbery, if there was a statement that the CCTV showed clothes similar to the clothes the defendant wore, the vehicle the defendant was driving was photographed, and there was a statement that he saw a witness who saw someone similar to the defendant, it would be convicted. Can you do it?” he asked. “Even in this case, even if there is a statement that the defendant was elsewhere at that time, the first trial rejected it, saying,’I’m lying for the defendant’,” he urged the first trial to judge. The attorney said, “This is an example that could be included in textbooks due to the confirmatory bias.”

In addition, the lawyer continued to insist that it was illegal for violating the warrantism about the process in which the computer (PC) in the lecturer’s lounge where the evidence of counterfeiting of Professor Chung’s citation from Tong Yang was found to the prosecution. The lawyer said, “The exception of random submission is a typical case in which the abuse of the prosecution’s right to investigate is maximized due to the specificity of electronic information.” At the same time, he raised his voice, saying, “It is not just a problem of Professor Jeong, but the crisis that all citizens living in the information society will be exposed to the investigative agencies.”

On this day, the court decided to inform the decision to adopt later after hearing the evidence requested by both sides and receiving opinions. The High Court Criminal Division 1-2, which was in charge of Prof. Chung’s appeal trial, is a parallel court consisting of three chief judges of the High Court. Chief Judge Um Sang-pil (53rd and 23rd term) serves as the judge, and Chief Judge Shim Dam (52th and 24th term) serves as the chief judge. Deputy Judge Lee Seung-ryun (56th and 20th term), who served as the first head of the Planning and Coordination Office of the Court Administration Department in the system of Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo, also participates in the hearing. The preparation for the next trial for Professor Jeong will be held on the 29th of this month.

Prof. Chung’s appeal trial case was originally allocated to the first criminal division (presiding judge Jung Joon-young), but due to the division of the Seoul High Court, Judge Jeong moved to the 18th civil affairs division, and the newly formed Grand Court took over.

Reporter Lee Sujeong [email protected]