Jo Beom-dong Gives Testimony Favorable to Jeong Gyeong-sim... "I Was the One Who Proposed the False Consulting"

Professor Jung Kyung-shim of Dongyang University, who was indicted on suspicion of private tutoring, is entering the courtroom to attend a trial held on the 11th at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Jo Seongpil] Jo Beomdong, the fifth cousin of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, appeared as a witness for two consecutive days at the trial of Professor Jeong Gyeongshim of Dongyang University. He gave several testimonies that could determine the guilt or innocence regarding the embezzlement charges related to the private equity fund allegations against Professor Jeong.

On the 12th, Jo appeared as a witness again at the continuation trial of Professor Jeong held at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25-2 (Presiding Judge Im Jeongyeop). Jo is the actual owner of Coring Private Equity (PE), the private equity fund management company in which the Cho family invested 1.4 billion KRW. He is also named as an accomplice in the charges against Professor Jeong, including false reporting under the Capital Markets Act and embezzlement.

The main issue during the two-day witness examination was the explanation of the embezzlement charges. The prosecution alleges that in 2017, Professor Jeong invested 1 billion KRW in Coring PE and signed a false management consulting contract under the name of her younger brother, Jeong Mo, receiving about 8.6 million KRW monthly under this pretext, embezzling a total of approximately 157 million KRW.

On the other hand, Professor Jeong's side has maintained that the 1 billion KRW was a loan, not an investment, and the 157 million KRW was interest. Jo, named as an accomplice, testified with the same position as Professor Jeong, stating that the 1 billion KRW was borrowed money and the 157 million KRW was interest.

However, the court previously stated that whether the financial transaction between Professor Jeong and Jo was an investment or a loan is not important. The main issue is whether Jo’s signing of the consulting contract and giving 8.6 million KRW monthly to Professor Jeong’s side constitutes embezzlement, and whether Professor Jeong knowingly exercised 'functional control' while receiving money under the consulting contract, which would constitute embezzlement.

From Professor Jeong’s perspective, if the money was received as simple income without knowing its origin, and if she did not coerce Jo to produce false consulting documents, it cannot be considered embezzlement.

Through the examination, Professor Jeong’s side tried to elicit statements that she was unaware of the embezzlement and had no involvement in the consulting contract. The defense attorney asked, "When the witness received the 1 billion KRW, Professor Jeong wanted it as a loan, and Coring PE wanted a paid-in capital increase for financial soundness, correct?", "The witness also proposed the interest and consulting fees on the 1 billion KRW loan, right?", "You never showed false consulting documents to Professor Jeong, correct?"

Jo answered "Yes" to all these questions. This implies that Professor Jeong gave Jo the 1 billion KRW as a loan and that the false consulting contract money was proposed by Jo. It could also mean that Professor Jeong received the money as fees without knowing it was embezzlement at the time of the false consulting contract.

The defense then presented the consulting contract and asked, "Is it true that Professor Jeong never requested such documents to be made?" Jo answered "Yes." When asked, "Did Chairman Lee Bongjik of Iksung agree to pay the consulting fees?" Jo replied, "He was very pleased." This indicates that there was no functional control by Professor Jeong and that the responsibility for the false consulting contract lies entirely with Jo and others.

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