Trial of Jeong Gyeongshim Resumed After a Month... Prosecution and Defense Call for "Mutual Respect"

Professor Jeong Kyung-shim, Dongyang University

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The trial of Professor Jeong Gyeong-sim of Dongyang University resumed on the 11th. This trial had been suspended for about a month due to overlapping regular court personnel changes and a recess caused by the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) since the 12th of last month. In the hearing resumed after a month under the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25-2 (Chief Judge Lim Jeong-yeop), a fierce dispute took place over the prosecution's earlier request to consolidate the case with that of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk and the defense's request for bail. However, the confrontation was limited to verbal sparring and did not reach the level of the 'clashes' that occurred during the previous trial panel's session.

Witness Choi Seong-hae... Request to Postpone Examination Due to COVID-19 Situation

In the previous four hearings, only documentary evidence was examined concerning allegations of private equity fund involvement and evidence tampering. The formal trial was delayed and failed to gain momentum due to conflicts during the preparation hearings, including the prosecution's objection to the refusal to amend the indictment and the intervention of the former presiding judge, Chief Judge Song In-kwon. The fact that all members of the trial panel changed due to court personnel changes last month was also one of the reasons for the slow renewal of the trial.

The new trial panel began the hearing with the procedure to renew the arguments and decided to proceed with witness examinations from the next hearing. On the 18th, Dr. Jeong Byeong-hwa of KIST (Korea Institute of Science and Technology), on the 25th, two Dongyang University teaching assistants, and on the 30th, former Dongyang University President Choi Seong-hae were scheduled to be called. Dr. Jeong and former President Choi were requested by the prosecution to prove allegations related to admission fraud, while the two teaching assistants were requested by the defense to demonstrate illegal evidence collection by the prosecution.

The defense also requested to postpone the scheduled witness examinations, expressing concerns about the spread of COVID-19. The defense stated, "It might be better to proceed first with procedures unrelated to COVID-19 and observe the situation," adding, "Although the presiding judge has already decided, and we do not intend to raise any objections, we hope this will be considered given the uncertainty of how the situation will develop." The court responded, "Since the court has decided to proceed with the trial of the detained defendant, we ask for your understanding," and added, "Future witness summons will be conducted after confirming their health status."

Choi Seong-hae, former president of Dongyang University

Jeong Gyeong-sim: "If Granted Bail, I Will Even Wear an Electronic Ankle Bracelet"

The court held a bail hearing for Professor Jeong on this day. The previous trial panel had postponed the hearing on whether to grant bail, considering the possibility of personnel changes in the court last month.

The defense argued that "bail is necessary to guarantee the right to defense against the prosecutor's right to indict." They stated, "The prosecution has collected overwhelmingly more evidence through over 100 searches and seizures, while we only have 1 to 2 hours of visitation time with the defendant in detention," adding, "The only way to level the playing field is through a trial with bail." The defense also requested, "Please judge whether the admission fraud allegations constitute such a serious crime that bail should not be granted."

Professor Jeong, given the opportunity to speak, said, "The charges and statements differ significantly from my memory, but I have no way to verify them," adding, "I have to recall events from 13 years ago, so if consideration is given, I would like to freely review past materials for defense purposes." She also tearfully said, "My health is very poor, but if bail is granted, I am prepared to accept all bail conditions, including wearing an electronic ankle bracelet."

On the other hand, the prosecution argued, "The crime in this case involved maintaining privilege through false information in educational inheritance and pursuing predatory private gain by riding on capital-free mergers and acquisitions (M&A), which is of a serious nature and likely to result in a heavy sentence, so there is a high risk of flight," insisting, "Detention should be maintained." They added, "The defendant was issued an arrest warrant in this case due to attempts involving people and materials." The court stated, "We will consider both parties' statements and decide on bail as quickly as possible."

Dispute Over Indictment Amendment and Case Consolidation

During the hearing, the prosecution and defense also clashed over the amendment of the indictment and case consolidation. The prosecution insisted that the indictment amendment and case consolidation they requested must be carried out, while the defense maintained that they should be denied.

Previously, the prosecution had applied to amend the indictment to specify former Minister Cho Kuk as a co-conspirator in the allegations of admission fraud and evidence tampering against Professor Jeong. They also requested to consolidate the trials of Professor Jeong's case and former Minister Cho's case. The prosecution stated again on this day, "These cases were sequentially indicted, and since the evidence is the same and fairness among co-conspirators needs to be ensured, please consolidate the cases."

In contrast, Professor Jeong's defense argued, "The part accusing the defendant and former Minister Cho Kuk of conspiracy in both the admission fraud and private equity fund allegations is very weak," adding, "There are parts that do not overlap between this case and former Minister Cho's case," and "The crimes related to bribery are entirely different." The defense also questioned, "We need to consider whether it is appropriate to put the couple on trial in the same courtroom," and retorted, "Efficiency is just a pretext; isn't this to embarrass them?" However, the defense agreed to separate the additional indictment involving former Minister Cho Kuk and bring it to the current trial panel.

The court stated, "We will decide on case consolidation with the trial panel handling former Minister Cho Kuk's case before the next hearing." Currently, former Minister Cho's case is assigned to the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 21 (Chief Judge Kim Mi-ri) and is scheduled for its first hearing on the 20th.

Former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk Photo by Yonhap News

"Please Observe Court Etiquette" "Mutual Respect Is Necessary"

The defense referred to incidents that occurred during the previous trial panel's sessions and requested that court etiquette be observed. The defense stated, "The prosecutors overreacted, and during the third preparatory hearing, we witnessed things we had not experienced before," adding, "We considered this a very serious issue, and from the defense's perspective, it was a kind of contempt of court in a broad sense." They continued, "During the documentary evidence examination, there were unrestrained remarks that amounted to defamation and insults against the defendant," and questioned, "Is it appropriate for this unrelated part to the guilt or innocence of the case to be flooded in the media?" The defense requested, "Since we all understand criminal procedure law and court etiquette, we hope such incidents will not be repeated."

The prosecution countered, "We raised objections according to legal provisions because the trial procedures under the criminal procedure law were not being followed," adding, "The defense said the prosecution was making humiliating arguments against the defendant, but we explained the significance of the evidence presented during the documentary evidence examination," and said, "The presiding judge will know from the trial records whether the prosecution's or defense's arguments are valid." Nevertheless, the prosecution said, "It is necessary to conduct the trial in an atmosphere of mutual restraint and respect," and "We will do our best according to procedures."

The court said, "Our trial panel has no reason to judge which arguments were inappropriate in the previous trial procedures," but added, "If we determine that remarks are unrelated to the case or interfere with the hearing, we will restrict them." The court also requested, "From now on, both the prosecution and defense should refrain from pointing out each other's arguments as improper."

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