Prosecutors vs. Defense Clash Over Absence of Hyosung Affiliate Employee Witness

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] When an affiliate employee summoned as a witness in the trial of Cho Hyun-joon, chairman of Hyosung Group, who was indicted on charges of unfair support to affiliates, did not appear in court, the prosecution claimed that a false excuse for absence was submitted. Cho’s defense counsel and Hyosung denied the prosecution’s claim, stating it stemmed from a misunderstanding.

Judge Kim Jun-hyuk of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 5 held a trial session on the 22nd for Chairman Cho, who was indicted for violating the Fair Trade Act.

Originally, the day was scheduled for the witness examination of Yang, an employee of Hyosung Heavy Industries, but the examination was canceled as he did not appear.

In response, the prosecution stated, “Yang submitted a written excuse for absence five days ago, stating that he has been working as a resident employee in the United States since March last year, making it difficult to appear as a witness. However, upon checking his immigration records, surprisingly, the contents of the excuse for absence were false.”

According to the prosecution, Yang went on a one-month business trip to the U.S. in July last year, and four months later, he traveled on business to the U.S., France, and other countries for four months. He left for a business trip to the U.S. around March this year.

The prosecution pointed out, “March last year, when Yang claimed to be a resident employee in the U.S., was when COVID-19 was rampant in the U.S. and worldwide, and then-President Donald Trump was refusing to issue student and resident employee visas.”

They added, “Yang was a subordinate employee when defendant Cho Hyun-joon worked as head of Hyosung’s Strategy Headquarters. We suspect whether the defendant was involved in Yang’s absence.”

“Yang’s absence not only delays the trial but also raises concerns about evidence destruction,” they emphasized, “Please warn the defendant not to exert undue influence over the witness.”

Cho’s defense counsel responded, “If it is true that he is working and residing in the U.S., it would be difficult to ask someone who returned to the U.S. in March to appear in court. We will verify whether he is indeed working there and submit a statement.”

The defense also said, “There is strong doubt about whether the prosecution’s vague suspicion is valid.”

Meanwhile, regarding the prosecution’s claims, Hyosung stated, “The prosecution’s claim that the excuse for absence submitted by the witness is false is a misunderstanding and completely unfounded.”

Hyosung explained, “The witness is an essential personnel for the normal operation of the newly acquired U.S. Memphis plant and has been working locally since March last year following a dispatch order to the U.S. Due to disruptions in the issuance of resident employee visas by the U.S. Embassy caused by the COVID-19 situation, he has been working on a dispatch basis, and in March, he obtained a resident employee visa and is currently working locally as a resident employee.”

They added, “Regarding the witness’s attendance, we plan to expedite his return to Korea to ensure his appearance.”

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