Jeong Gyeong-sim, the niece of Cho Kuk, stands as a witness: "I cannot accept the prosecution's indictment" (Comprehensive)

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] "I do not remember.", "I refuse to testify as it seems related to my charges."

Professor Jung Kyung-shim of Dongyang University appeared as a witness on the 27th at the criminal trial of Cho Beom-dong, the fifth cousin of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, held at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 24 (Presiding Judge So Byung-seok), repeatedly giving such answers.

The court stated, "The witness may freely decide to refuse to testify regarding the reasons for refusing testimony."

On that day, Professor Jung avoided direct answers to questions that could be disadvantageous in her own trial, while actively explaining some topics that had been highlighted during parts of the trial.

She also asserted her innocence and at times expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution's investigation. In particular, she reacted with "I cannot accept it" and "It is absurd" regarding the charges she faces together with Cho.

◆Jung Kyung-shim: "Mostly do not remember... Refuse to testify" = During the main questioning by the prosecution, focused questions such as "Have you ever had investment-related conversations with Cho?" were asked intensively.

However, Professor Jung consistently responded that she did not remember most of the content or could not speak about it.

Below are some excerpts from Professor Jung's witness examination:

Quotation

Prosecutor = Have you ever visited the defendant's office and heard explanations about the investment value of Iksung through the fund?

Professor Jung = I refuse to testify as it seems related to my charges.

Prosecutor = Did you listen to explanations about investment and business regarding Iksung and receive materials?

Professor Jung = I do not remember.

Prosecutor = Did you send a text message to the defendant in December 2015 saying, 'Did your nephew have a good Christmas holiday? Please contact me if you can talk'?

Professor Jung = I do not remember.

Prosecutor = Afterwards, you sent a text message to the defendant saying, 'It would be good to meet at the office by 2:30 pm.' Since you had a phone call, isn't this message related to investment matters?

Professor Jung = I do not remember. The second question seems related to my charges, so I refuse to testify.

On that day, a significant portion of the prosecution's questioning records consisted of text message conversations between Professor Jung and Cho from late 2015 to February 2017.

The prosecution proceeded with witness questioning based on these text messages, asking, "Are you aware of these facts?"

Even as Professor Jung repeatedly answered "I do not remember" or "I will not testify," questions about the investment background and related discussions continued.

The prosecution viewed from the investigation stage that Professor Jung conspired with Cho to commit private equity fund corruption.

Cho's indictment listed three items?embezzlement through false consulting contracts, false reports to the Financial Services Commission regarding private equity fund agreements, and evidence destruction?naming Professor Jung as an accomplice.

Professor Jung denied all conspiracy charges. The court accepted the prosecution's witness request, stating, "It is necessary to give Professor Jung an opportunity to clarify and determine whether to recognize the accomplice relationship."

However, on the 20th, Professor Jung submitted a letter of absence stating, "The prosecutor's questioning is no different from the defendant's questioning," and did not appear in court.

Her side explained in the letter that "It is difficult to appear as a witness because the testimony given would likely be submitted as evidence in her own trial."

The court imposed a fine of 4 million won for her absence but indicated it would reconsider the fine since she appeared in court that day.

Meanwhile, the prosecution plans to submit the witness examination content as evidence to Professor Jung's trial court.

Professor Jung is currently on trial at this court's Criminal Division 25-2 (Presiding Judge Lim Jeong-yeop) on charges including illegal investment in private equity funds.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

◆At times actively explaining and defending = Professor Jung actively explained when prosecution questions were somewhat distant from her charges.

In particular, when asked about the meaning of a text message she sent to her younger brother in July 2017 saying, "My goal is to buy a building in Gangnam," she said, "It was a very private conversation, and I was deeply hurt by media manipulation."

She added that at a meeting with Cho near Yeoksam Station in Seoul, she asked, "I remember asking how much such a building costs," and Cho said, "It costs 4 to 5 billion won; you should buy a building in Gangnam," which encouraged her to say that to her brother.

Professor Jung also said that a text message she sent to Cho in 2016 saying, "Thank you for always helping me. Please help me more in the new year," did not carry significant meaning.

She explained, "By nature, I have always expressed gratitude even to subordinates and to those who serve meals in detention," and argued, "Why wouldn't I be thankful when receiving money that I was reluctant to entrust and paying interest?"

When the prosecution mentioned her husband, former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, she described him as "a person completely uninterested in money and honest."

Professor Jung repeatedly emphasized that Cho Kuk was unaware of financial management matters.

She shared anecdotes such as paying for their children's private tutoring during high school and not remembering how much money Cho sent her two months ago.

She said, "My husband did not even know if I had money before his public office asset disclosure, and when I asked for money, he sent it without question."

Professor Jung also stressed that neither she nor her younger brother, who invested funds into Coring Private Equity (Coring PE), were knowledgeable about financial transactions.

She said, "I do not understand the meaning of terms like principal or loan and repayment that the prosecutor talks about," and "I only recently learned that private equity funds are called 'private equity' in English."

Regarding the embezzlement charge of 150 million won, she actively defended her use of the term "investment funds" when referring to money given to Cho.

Professor Jung said, "My major is literature, and I tend to adapt to words and repeat what others say," adding, "I was just repeating the other party's words."

She also said, "I used the term 'investment' to mean that the money left my hands."

The prosecution views the 150 million won received from Cho as embezzled funds to cover minimum investment returns, but Professor Jung and Cho's side claim it was interest on a loan.

◆"Not investment but loan... Cannot accept evidence destruction charge" = Cho's defense attorney argued that day, "This case should be judged based on substance, not by fixating on words like investment or loan."

They pointed out that the prosecution's fixation on the word "investment" used by Professor Jung and Cho to view the 150 million won as embezzlement is far from the substantive truth.

The defense said, "The interest rate in this case is around 10%, which ordinary people would call an investment rather than a loan."

They added, "The prosecution calls it a 'black investment,' but the fact is only that 10% of 1 billion won was received," emphasizing, "If it was an investment, the prosecution must prove how much investment occurred and that the profits were delivered to Professor Jung."

Professor Jung also said, "I was shocked that the prosecution called it embezzlement when I lent money and received interest," reiterating that it was a loan, not an investment.

Regarding the false report to the Financial Services Commission about the private equity fund agreement, Cho's defense said, "It seems that the documents were prepared as a workaround to avoid high tax rates under tax law if Professor Jung only received interest."

They emphasized that the embezzlement charges against Professor Jung and Cho are not punishable as embezzlement but could be punishable as tax law violations.

There were no questions about the evidence destruction charges against Professor Jung and Cho during the witness examination.

After the questioning, the court gave Professor Jung an opportunity to explain regarding the evidence destruction charges.

Professor Jung said, "Even after being investigated over 50 times by the prosecution, I was never asked about evidence destruction," adding, "I never instructed anyone to destroy evidence, so I was very surprised that the prosecution indicted me on this charge."

She continued, "From the start of the prosecution's investigation, I tried to tell the truth and facts, so I cannot understand what I was supposed to have instructed to destroy."

The court concluded the trial that day and set the next hearing for the 11th of next month, stating that questioning of Cho would proceed.

The court also announced that the trial would conclude on the 25th of next month, followed by the final arguments.

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