For 5 Hours, Cho Kuk Repeatedly Cited 'Criminal Procedure Act Article 148'... Black Book Authors Criticize (Summary)

Former Minister Cho Submits Witness Support Procedure Application, Uses Alternative Channel
Most Investigating Prosecutors Participate... Former Minister Cho Exercises 'Right to Refuse Testimony'
Lawyer Kwon Kyung-ae: "A Legal Rogue to Be Remembered in Criminal Justice History"

On the 3rd, the trial of Professor Jeong Gyeong-shim of Dongyang University, held at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25-2 (Chief Judge Lim Jeong-yeop), proceeded with former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk summoned as a witness.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Jo] A QM3 vehicle registered under the name of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk arrived at the Seoul Central District Court West Building in Seocho-dong, Seoul, at 9:40 a.m. on the 3rd. Professor Jung Kyung-shim of Dongyang University, Cho’s wife, got out of the vehicle. Cho Kuk was not present. This day was when the couple stood together in court. Professor Jung was the defendant, and Cho Kuk was a witness. There was interest in whether the couple would appear together at the court. However, two days before the trial, Cho Kuk submitted a witness support procedure application, resulting in them using separate entrances. By submitting the witness support procedure application, the witness can enter and exit the courtroom through a separate passage from the general entrance, accompanied by a support officer.

The trial, presided over by the Criminal Division 25-2 of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Judge Lim Jeong-yeop), began at 10:10 a.m. Professor Jung sat in the defendant’s seat on the left side of the bench, while Cho Kuk took the witness stand directly facing the bench. The distance between Cho Kuk and Professor Jung was about 4 to 5 meters. On the prosecution side, most of the prosecutors involved in the investigation, including Chief Prosecutor Ko Hyung-gon who came from Daegu, participated in the trial. It was truly an all-out effort. Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kang Baek-shin, who was recently demoted in the middle-level prosecutor reshuffle and started working at the Tongyeong Branch from that day, also appeared in court.

Professor Jung Kyung-shim of Dongyang University, who is accused of 'admission bribery and private equity fund' related charges, is heading to the courtroom to attend a trial held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu on the morning of the 3rd.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

The summons of Cho Kuk as a witness was decided on June 25. At that trial, the court judged that questioning Cho Kuk was necessary. Although the Criminal Procedure Act grants the right to refuse testimony regarding relatives, it does not allow refusal to appear for summons. Professor Jung’s side protested, claiming it was a human rights violation. They argued that forcing testimony while knowing that their statements could be used as evidence of the spouse’s guilt contains elements of human rights infringement. However, the court did not accept Professor Jung’s argument and advised the prosecution not to conduct questioning that invades private life unrelated to the charges.

Following the court’s advice, the prosecution planned to question Cho Kuk about key facts related to admission bribery and private equity fund charges. However, Cho Kuk exercised his right to refuse testimony while reading a self-prepared explanatory document. He stated, "The defendant in this courtroom is my spouse, and my children’s names are also listed in the indictment, and I myself am also charged as an accomplice of my spouse and am undergoing trial." He added, "In this situation, I intend to exercise the right granted by Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act (the right to refuse testimony regarding relatives) against the prosecution’s questioning conducted in this courtroom." After deliberation, the court briefly acknowledged the exercise of the right to refuse testimony but effectively did not accept Cho Kuk’s claim and proceeded with the questioning. Subsequently, during the prosecution’s questioning, Cho Kuk refused to answer all questions, citing "Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act."

Cho Kuk’s invocation of "Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act" continued until the trial ended at 4:50 p.m. Considering the lunch recess, he gave the same answer for nearly five hours. The prosecution asked him over 300 questions that day.

Co-authors of "A Country Never Experienced Before," a critical analysis of the "Cho Kuk Incident," former Dongyang University professor Jin Joong-kwon, lawyer Kwon Kyung-ae, and Kim Kyung-yul, co-representative of Economic Democracy 21
[Image source=Yonhap News]

The exercise of the right to refuse testimony by Cho Kuk drew criticism from co-authors of the "Cho Kuk Black Book" (A Country Never Experienced Before). Lawyer Kwon Kyung-ae wrote on Facebook that day, "During the investigation, he refused to testify saying he would clarify it through the trial; at the trial, he refuses to testify; if he now shouts 'judicial reform' after 'prosecutorial reform,' refusing to testify in court might also become 'justice.'" She added, "He is a legal trickster (law + slippery fish) who will be remembered in the history of criminal justice," and questioned, "How did such a person come to be regarded and revered as an icon of progressivism for decades?"

Other co-authors of the Cho Kuk Black Book, former Dongyang University Professor Jin Joong-kwon and Kim Kyung-yul, co-representative of Economic Democracy 21, also criticized Cho Kuk’s refusal to testify that day. Former Professor Jin wrote on Facebook, "Cho Kuk refused to testify. He could neither tell the truth nor risk perjury by lying. It was the best choice for him." He continued, "He exercised the right to remain silent during the investigation, saying he would clarify it in court, but it is regrettable that he did not keep this promise," and pointed out, "He considered his rights as a private individual more important than his responsibilities as a public figure." Kim, who is from the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, also wrote on Facebook that day, "He exercised the right to remain silent before the prosecution and said he would say everything in court, so will he now say that history will tell?"

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