Unexpected Loud Shouting During Trial... Defendant Jeong Gyeong-sim Also Surprised

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Jo] On the 5th, during the third trial session of Professor Jeong Gyeong-shim of Dongyang University, wife of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, an unexpected loud argument erupted in Courtroom 424 of the Seoul Central District Court. The verbal clashes between the presiding judge, prosecutors, and defense attorneys were a scaled-down version of the unprecedented confrontation between the court and prosecution that occurred during the preparatory hearing of this case last December. Defendant Professor Jeong appeared startled, her eyes wide open, unable to take her gaze away.

Jung Kyung-shim, wife of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk and a professor at Dongyang University, is leaving the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, after completing the pre-arrest detention hearing on the 23rd. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Renewed Clash Among Court, Prosecution, and Defense

The opening salvo was fired by Chief Prosecutor Ko Hyung-gon and other prosecutors attending the trial. They opposed the court’s approval to review and copy two Dongyang University PCs secured as evidence and the hard disk of Kim, the asset manager for Professor Jeong. The prosecution argued, "The court is underestimating the risks and damages that could arise from allowing review and copying," adding, "The documents include personal information, phone numbers, and criminal facts of numerous people, not just the defendant and her family, raising concerns about leaks."

Professor Jeong’s defense team immediately countered. The attorney stated, "Those records were created and used by our defendant and her family," and questioned, "Why is the prosecution the subject of privacy protection? They are asking for our materials, and I don’t understand the grounds for refusing to provide them."

Below is an excerpt from the heated exchange:

Quotation Mark

Attorney = No, I am currently...

Prosecutor = Legally, we are...

Attorney = Prosecutor, please do not interrupt me while I am speaking.

Presiding Judge = No, I have already made a decision regarding the review and copying of investigation records. It cannot be changed.

Prosecutor = Because it is said to be owned by the defendant. Setting aside the asset manager’s hard disk, how did the defendant’s PC end up in the Dongyang University lecturer’s lounge...

Presiding Judge = Please clarify that next time. What if you say the trial is delayed by making such remarks?

Another Prosecutor = I raise an objection. Please allow a chance to testify regarding the admission fraud charges.

Presiding Judge = I already said we would conduct document examination. If the presiding judge does not have that authority, are you saying the trial should not proceed? From the beginning, this is very... sigh.

The loud verbal exchange ended only after Presiding Judge Song In-kwon expressed displeasure toward the prosecution. Due to the sudden argument, the originally scheduled document examination was delayed by 20 minutes before it began.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

The 'Gangnam Building Dream' Revisited

During the subsequent document examination, the prosecution again referenced the 'Gangnam Building' text message presented at the previous trial session. The Gangnam Building text message was sent by Professor Jeong to her younger brother in July 2017, after former Minister Cho Kuk was appointed Senior Secretary for Civil Affairs, stating, "My goal is to buy a building in Gangnam." It was first disclosed at the second trial session on the 31st of last month.

The prosecution stated, "Everyone may dream of buying a house or building in Gangnam, but that alone cannot be considered a crime," while adding, "In many crimes, greed for such wealth serves as the motive." They emphasized, "If it becomes the motive or purpose of the crime, it can be evidence of guilt." This was a rebuttal to the defense’s claim after the second trial session that "Professor Jeong inherited buildings and land in Gangbuk and is already a building owner, so such messages expressing that intention cannot be evidence proving the private equity fund-related criminal charges."

The prosecution further argued, "The Gangbuk building shares inherited by Professor Jeong accounted for one-third of a 2.4 billion KRW building, and the declared asset amount at the time was only 5 billion KRW," adding, "It is common sense that this amount makes owning a Gangnam building difficult." They also claimed, "Cho Beom-dong, a fifth cousin of former Minister Cho, offered Professor Jeong an unimaginable condition that with just 700 million KRW, the private equity fund could yield 1.4 billion KRW in one year, and 2.5 billion KRW in two years," and "The Gangnam Building dream messages exchanged between Professor Jeong and her brother immediately after consulting with Cho Beom-dong about investment explain the motive for this crime."

Prosecution Expresses Opposition to Jeong Gyeong-shim’s Bail in a Roundabout Way

The prosecution presented records of phone calls exchanged among Professor Jeong, former Minister Cho, and Cho Beom-dong. "After media reports on private equity fund-related suspicions surfaced on August 14-15 last year, Professor Jeong called former Minister Cho, followed by calls from Cho Beom-dong to Coringk PE officials. This pattern continued throughout the confirmation hearing period of former Minister Cho." The claim was that when unfavorable information about former Minister Cho and others emerged through media reports, Professor Jeong consulted with former Minister Cho and then instructed Cho Beom-dong to prepare explanatory materials.

The prosecution explained that during the investigation period, Professor Jeong made false statements about this series of events. They requested the court to consider this when deciding on bail, stating, "Professor Jeong continued to make false statements and refused to appear for a certain period." Earlier, the court had announced at the first trial session last month that it would decide on Professor Jeong’s bail after the document examination. It appears the prosecution expressed opposition to bail through this documentary evidence examination.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Cho Kuk’s Twitter Post Disclosed... "Evidence" vs. "Unrelated to the Case"

The prosecution also presented part of former Minister Cho Kuk’s Twitter posts in court that day. The tweet contained criticism of former Gyeongnam Governor Hong Jun-pyo for violating the Public Official Ethics Act during the 2015 Seong Wan-jong list controversy. In the tweet, Cho stated, "Hong Jun-pyo’s remark that ‘I just found out about my wife hiding 12 million KRW in primary election funds’ was a calculated statement to avoid violating the Public Official Ethics Act, which mandates asset declaration," and "Should we envy him for having a wonderful wife?"

Professor Jeong’s defense immediately protested, arguing that the tweet was unrelated to the case. The attorney questioned, "Are you revealing former Minister Cho Kuk’s Twitter content to talk about any criminal facts?" The prosecution responded, "Former Minister Cho Kuk holds strict standards regarding his wife’s asset declarations, which forced Professor Jeong to engage in evidence destruction, etc." Upon leaving the courtroom, Professor Jeong’s defense criticized, "Presenting Twitter posts unrelated to the indictment is merely an attempt to disgrace former Minister Cho."

Defense: "Prosecution’s Claims Are a Logical Leap"

As the document examination concluded, the prosecution stated, "This crime undermines the foundation of democracy and is a serious offense that our society cannot tolerate, so it must be severely punished."

In contrast, the defense maintained a not guilty stance, asserting, "Professor Jeong’s series of actions related to the private equity fund suspicions are neither legally prohibited nor punishable under criminal law." The attorney added, "It is not punishable for a public official’s spouse not to sell or place stocks in blind trust," and "There is no norm prohibiting ordinary citizens from engaging in anonymous financial transactions." The defense also pointed out, "The prosecution repeatedly mentions more than 15 times that the defendant once said the Gangnam building was a dream, claiming it as the motive for the crime," and criticized, "This is a logical leap and clearly reveals the political intent the prosecution aims to achieve through this case."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.