Petition Surpasses 300,000... Was the Jeong Gyeongshim Trial Panel Biased Toward the Prosecution?

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Jo] The number of signatures on the Blue House petition demanding the impeachment of the judges of the first trial court for Professor Jeong Gyeong-sim of Dongyang University, the Criminal Division 25-2 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Lim Jeong-yeop, Judges Kwon Seong-su and Kim Seon-hee), exceeded 300,000 on the 26th. The petitioner stated, "The court was not neutral and showed a biased process favoring the prosecution."

He said, "The gist of the guilty verdict is that all the admission fraud charges against Jeong Gyeong-sim's children were recognized as guilty." He added, "The court unilaterally relied only on the prosecution's circumstantial evidence and statements," and "If the judgment is made solely based on the investigation documents submitted by the prosecution, it is an act of abandoning the conscience of the judge and violates the Constitution." The petitioner said, "I really want to ask the court whether it judged according to the conscience stipulated in the Constitution."

Looking at the first trial judgment document written by the court for Professor Jeong, some answers to the petitioner's question are contained. The judgment document is 531 pages of A4 paper excluding appendices. It contains refined facts supported by evidence and testimony.

Jeong Gyeong-sim, wife of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, who was indicted on charges of entrance exam fraud and private equity fund suspicions, is attending the first trial sentencing hearing held on the 23rd at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

Evidence Submitted by Prosecution... Less Than Half Adopted

Before judging each issue of this case, the court stated the gist of the evidence in the judgment document. The list of evidence alone spans 11 pages. Among them, the evidence related to admission fraud charges, for which guilt was recognized in all charges, is 7 pages. According to the judgment document, the total number of pieces of evidence adopted as grounds for judgment on Professor Jeong's admission fraud charges is 248.

Previously, during the trial process, the prosecution submitted more than 900 pieces of evidence to the court to support the charges against Professor Jeong. Among them, the list of evidence related to admission fraud charges accounted for more than half. The court adopted the evidence agreed upon by Professor Jeong's side after the process of evidence identification and document investigation, and for evidence that was disagreed upon, procedures such as witness examination were conducted. As a result, 200 pieces of evidence submitted by the prosecution were adopted, and the rest were supplemented by 48 court testimonies of witnesses who appeared in court. Thus, a total of 248 pieces of evidence were finally adopted.

From the first trial in January this year to the final hearing in November, a total of 34 sessions were held, with about 40 witnesses appearing in court. The court adopted most of their court testimonies as evidence. The court testimony of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, who repeatedly answered "I will comply with Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act," was not adopted as evidence. Similarly, the testimony refusal by Han In-seop, Director of the Criminal Policy Research Institute, was excluded. Among the statements submitted by the prosecution, only five that Professor Jeong's side agreed to as evidence were adopted.

PC in the Lounge Disagreed by Jeong's Side... Why It Is Legal Evidence

Among the evidence disagreed upon by Professor Jeong's side, the computer (PC) found in the Dongyang University lecturer lounge was adopted. On this PC, computer records down to the second were found, storing and processing the Dongyang University logo and the president's seal files, which are presumed to have been used for forging certificates. With this PC adopted as evidence, Professor Jeong was sentenced guilty for forgery of private documents and admission fraud charges.

Professor Jeong's side argued that this PC was illegally collected evidence. The prosecution secured the PC in the Dongyang University lecturer lounge in Yeongju, Gyeongbuk, on September 10 last year, but Jeong's side claimed, "The search and seizure after the indictment (September 6, 2019) is illegal." The prosecution countered, "We followed the formal voluntary submission procedure, not search and seizure," but Jeong's side insisted, "The assistant Kim, who handed over the PC, is not the owner or custodian as defined by the Criminal Procedure Act and thus has no authority to voluntarily submit it."

However, the court rejected Jeong's side's claim, stating, "It does not constitute illegally collected evidence." The court ruled, "The prosecution's act of securing the PC in the lecturer lounge is a voluntary investigation that can be conducted without a search warrant issued by the court, thus it is lawful." It also ruled that assistant Kim "had the authority as the custodian of the lecturer lounge PC to lawfully submit the PC."

The court pointed out, "The prosecution's failure to provide Kim with a detailed electronic information list after extracting information from the PC violated the procedures stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act." However, "Excluding the evidential value of the PC solely due to such procedural defects would result in a violation of the principle of due process and the realization of criminal justice through the harmony of substantive truth-finding," and thus recognized the evidential value of the information extracted from the PC.

Seoul Central District Court / Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

Even If Only Some Charges Were Admitted... Imprisonment Due to Unrepentant Attitude

Judge: Defendant, have you reflected a lot?

Defendant: I apologize for causing trouble.

Judge: No, I asked if you have reflected?

Defendant: Ah, I express regret to those who suffered damage due to an unintended accident.

Judge: I mean, I am asking if you have reflected, that is, if you admit wrongdoing.

Defendant: I apologize to the public for causing concern due to an unfortunate incident...

(Omitted)

Judge: You have no remorse. I sentence you. The defendant is sentenced to 7 years in prison.

The above dialogue is taken from a sentencing scene in the SBS drama "Dear Judge," which aired in 2018. The defendant in the drama was a third-generation chaebol (played by Yoon Namu). The judge (played by Yoon Si-yoon) sentenced the defendant to 7 years in prison, exceeding the Supreme Court's recommended sentencing guidelines, because the defendant charged with assault and other offenses did not show a remorseful attitude until the end.

In criminal cases, "serious remorse" acts as a mitigating factor. Whether the defendant shows remorse and to what extent significantly influences sentencing. This is reflected in the Supreme Court's sentencing guidelines. Incorporating the "degree of remorse" into sentencing is because remorse indicates a low likelihood of recidivism. The logic is that since the defendant is unlikely to commit the crime again, heavy punishment is unnecessary. This is why defendants submit letters of remorse to the court.

However, Professor Jeong's side never showed remorse during the trial process. The court also pointed out in the judgment document, "The defendant has never honestly admitted or reflected on her wrongdoing from around the time the hearing on Cho Kuk began until the conclusion of the trial."

Such an attitude of Professor Jeong ultimately led to her being detained in court. The court criticized, "The defendant provided an opportunity for people who do not know the detailed circumstances to criticize those who testified in court by claiming that those who testified about the charges did so with false testimony for political purposes or personal gain." It also stated, "Even considering the aspect of exercising the right to defense, the defendant's attitude of denying all charges despite objective physical evidence and credible testimonies and statements of related persons, and continuing unconvincing and irrational claims, is difficult to accept."

On the 23rd, the court sentenced Professor Jeong to 4 years in prison and detained her in court. Professor Jeong's side appealed on the day of sentencing. It is uncertain what trial strategy Professor Jeong's side will present in the upcoming appeal trial. However, many defendants who denied charges in the first trial admit charges and show remorse in the appeal trial to receive reduced sentences. Whether Professor Jeong's side will adopt this strategy or continue to claim innocence until the end will be revealed at the first appeal trial. The schedule for the appeal trial has not yet been set.

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