Chung Kyung-sim’s request for 20 witnesses of the second trial… “1 trial, typical confirmation bias”

The appeal hearing of Professor Kyung-Shim Chung of Tong Yang University has begun. This is the second court time given to Professor Chung.

After three months, the prosecutors and attorneys who met again in court announced a re-attack of the court on the entire charges of Professor Jeong, which were largely divided into entrance examination irregularities, private equity funds, and destruction of evidence. This is because both sides submitted grounds for appeal against the allegations. On this day, Professor Jeong also requested 20 witnesses to the court of appeals.

Prof. Chung’s first trial preparation deadline for the appeal trial was held on the 15th at the hearing of the Seoul High Court Criminal Agreement 1-2 (Sang-pil Um, Dam Shim, Seung-ryeon Lee). Professor Jeong did not appear in court on this day because it was the deadline to organize the proceedings of the trial in the future. There were nine prosecutors, ten lawyers, and a number of citizens who had been waiting for hearings from the early morning.

Previously, the first trial admitted guilty to all charges of corruption in the entrance examination for forging his daughter Jo Min’s citation and academic matters by Professor Jeong. The charges of private equity and destruction of evidence were only partially convicted. Among them, the charge of destroying evidence has been mainly mentioned as the reason for arrest and sentence of Professor Jeong (related article: Jeong Kyung-shim, 4 years imprisonment, 500 million fines… Court “Acknowledged forgery of the Dongyang University citation” http://omn .kr/1r44m).

[입시비리] Will’all guilty’ be maintained in the first trial and appeal trial?

If so, why did the prosecution file an appeal against the above charges even though all charges of corruption in the entrance examination were convicted? Prosecutor Kang Il-min said, “There is a reason for the decision to dismiss the application for change of the complaint on November 27, 2019.” At the first trial in November 2019, the prosecution requested a change in the date and location of the prosecution of Prof. Jeong. At that time, the 25th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Song In-Kwon) said, “Accomplice, date of crime, place, method, purpose of the event. All of the lights have been changed significantly,” he said and dismissed it.

Prosecutor Kang re-referenced the dismissal and argued, “Even if the indictment is changed, there is no obstacle to guaranteeing the defendant’s right to defend, and if the indictment is changed, it becomes easier for the defendant to exercise the defense right.”

The prosecution also raised the charges of falsely issuing an internship certificate to the Seoul National University Public Interest Human Rights Law Center internship to his daughter Cho Min, amid the charges against Professor Jeong’s entrance examination, as a reason for appeal. The court judge saw that it was the former Minister Cho Kook who forged the internship confirmation letter, and Professor Jeong saw that it was an accomplice. In response, prosecutor Kang said, “There is a violation of the prosecution’s opinion that the prosecution’s opinion that a joint offense forged by the defendant and the motherland (a confirmation letter) is established, and accepts only the preliminary opinion of writing a false official document.”

The lawyer completely criticized the results of the first trial, which judged all irregularities in the entrance exam as guilty. The main grounds for claiming innocence were procedural issues in the process of seizure and search and errors in judgment by the judges. Attorney Yu Ji-won (law firm LKB Partners) said, “When I read this judgment, I just remembered the case that I used to talk about the confirmation bias.” I rejected them all,” he criticized.

Attorney Yu said, “The reason that the investigation is blocked after the prosecution is filed is because the discretion of the lawful investigative agency is not exercised. If there is no evidence at the time of the prosecution, the prosecution itself is illegal. (omitted) To prevent this, after the prosecution is filed, the prosecution itself is illegal. “I want to ask if there is such a problem in this case,” he pointed out.

Attorney Chil-Joon Kim (Dasan Law Firm) also said, “This case is a case in which the abuse of the prosecution’s right of prosecution is maximized as the exceptional situation of voluntary submission (during the seizure and search process) meets the specificity of the electronic information medium.” In addition, there was no notification to the parties, and before the digital information was extracted, everything was subject to investigation. We also collected a lot of evidence that was not in the list of evidence.”

[사모펀드·증거인멸] “Unrealistic scenario” vs. “Canonical sentiment acknowledged”

Arguments from both sides over the private equity allegations were also prevalent. Prof. Jeong’s side emphasized innocence, saying that it was “an unrealistic scenario” over the prosecution’s arguments related to private equity. Attorney Seo Hyung-Seok (LKB Partners) said, “(The prosecution) conducted an investigation by converting the defendant’s investment activities to violation of the real name financial law and the use of undisclosed information, as there was no legal problem due to the private equity investment itself in the investigation process.” Emphasizing the illegality of the award.

In addition, Prof. Jeong rejected the first trial and claimed innocence for all charges of conducting financial transactions using a borrowed account in order to evade the obligation to register property under the Public Officials Ethics Act. Attorney Seo said, “Before the former Minister Cho Kuk resigned from the Chief Civil Service and was appointed as Minister of Justice, before the former Minister Cho Kook resigned and was appointed as the Minister of Justice,” said attorney Seo. ) Criticized as “overly arbitrary logic”. The alleged destruction of evidence held a position that there was a lack of relevant evidence.

The prosecution focused on the part where the first trial judged innocent in the part of Professor Jeong’s private equity fund. Prosecutors emphasized that “the accused’s willfulness and illegal intention are recognized” on charges of embezzling money from private equity manager Kolink PE by conspiring with Cho Bum-dong, former Justice Minister Cho’s 5th nephew. In addition, the prosecution foretold a court battle against the charges of reporting false changes during the violation of the Capital Market Act, which was acknowledged as innocent in the first trial, and the charge of a teacher hiding evidence for the forgery of the management status report related to the Blue Core Value Up 1 fund.

Professor Jeong’s side applies only 14 witnesses for irregularities in the entrance exam…

On that day, Professor Jeong’s side applied for a total of 20 witnesses, including 14 witnesses for entrance examination corruption, 4 witnesses for private equity, and 2 witnesses for destruction of evidence. Professor Jeong said, “The first trial said that when the defendant’s witnesses were adopted, they would reason from among the people who could be present. We had a problem with our defense right.”

The prosecution immediately protested. Prosecutor Won Shin-hye said, “It is different from the fact that the defendant was restricted from exercising the right of defense. (Omitted) At the time, the defendant did not apply for a witness for some reason and did not have a request to adopt a witness.” “It is meaninglessly delaying the proceedings” and “most of the witnesses have no direct relation to the facts of the prosecution and cannot influence the judgment of the issue at all.”