This Week's 'Daejang-dong 4' Second Trial Preparation Hearing... Positions on the Charges Expected to Emerge

Former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu, Hwacheon Daeyu major shareholder Kim Man-bae, and Nam Wook, lawyer and owner of Cheonhwa Dongin No. 4, a subsidiary of Hwacheon Daeyu (from left).
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The second pretrial hearing for the so-called 'Daejang-dong Four'?who have been indicted in connection with lobbying and preferential treatment allegations in the Daejang-dong development project?is scheduled to take place this week.

At the first pretrial hearing held on the 6th, the defendants refrained from stating their positions on the prosecution's charges, citing insufficient review of the records. Attention is now focused on how much of the charges each defendant will admit.

According to the legal community on the 19th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 (Presiding Judge Yang Cheol-han) will hold the second pretrial hearing at 10 a.m. on the 24th for four individuals indicted on charges including breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes: former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu, major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Kim Man-bae, lawyer Nam Wook, owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 4, a subsidiary of Hwacheon Daeyu, and accountant Jeong Young-hak, owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 5.

At the first pretrial hearing, the court intended to confirm whether the defendants wished to proceed with a jury trial and to ascertain their positions on the prosecution's charges and the expected witnesses.

However, while accountant Jeong's lawyer acknowledged the prosecution's charges, the other three defendants requested more time to review the investigation records, which had not yet been fully accessed, and asked the court for understanding, promising to clarify their positions at the next hearing.

Regarding the scheduling of the second pretrial hearing, the court proposed the 20th, but the defendants argued that they had not yet received the list of evidence and lacked sufficient preparation time, inquiring whether the hearing could be scheduled during the court's recess period.

The court responded that since a significant amount of time had passed since former Director Yoo was indicted, it was unavoidable to proceed promptly and requested that preparations be expedited. The court also noted, "While the other defendants may feel pressed for time, delaying could hinder their ability to fully exercise their right to defense during the trial."

Therefore, at the second pretrial hearing on the 24th, it is expected that the three defendants?former Director Yoo, Mr. Kim, and lawyer Nam?who did not state their positions at the first hearing, will present their stances on the prosecution's charges.

Former Director Yoo is accused of conspiring with Mr. Kim and others to divert at least 65.1 billion KRW in land development dividends and approximately 117.6 billion KRW in implementation profits to Hwacheon Daeyu, causing losses to the corporation, and of receiving bribes totaling over 300 million KRW and promises of bribes amounting to 70 billion KRW.

Mr. Kim and lawyer Nam face charges including breach of trust, bribery, and embezzlement under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. Although accountant Jeong was indicted as an accomplice to these two, he was prosecuted without detention in consideration of his voluntary cooperation with the prosecution, including providing recorded statements.

Unlike accountant Jeong, who actively cooperated by providing recordings during the investigation, the other three defendants have consistently denied the charges. Consequently, a fierce battle over the truth is anticipated between Jeong's side and the other three during the trial.

In particular, the three defendants?former Director Yoo, Mr. Kim, and lawyer Nam?have challenged the evidentiary value of the recordings submitted by accountant Jeong. Aware of this, Jeong's defense attorney stated at the first pretrial hearing, "Although there are difficulties due to the credibility of the recordings, we will actively cooperate with the trial to reveal the substantive facts."

Once the trial begins in earnest, a heated dispute is expected between the prosecution and Jeong's side and the other three defendants over the evidentiary admissibility and probative value of the recordings, which are key evidence in the case. The court's decision will likely hinge on whether it views Jeong's recordings as intentionally eliciting certain responses or as natural conversations.

Regarding the recordings, which reportedly contain details about profit distribution and lobbying circumstances, Mr. Kim and lawyer Nam have questioned their credibility by claiming during the investigation that the conversations were exchanged as jokes.

Meanwhile, at the previous pretrial hearing, Mr. Kim's lawyer pointed out that there are 43 volumes of evidence records and testimonial evidence from about 50 individuals, noting that although the charges differ among the defendants, the evidence lists largely overlap. In response, the court acknowledged that evidence lists might differ for each defendant and noted that Mr. Kim's list could be the most extensive. The court requested the prosecution to review whether any evidence could be separated, indicating that organizing the evidence lists by defendant will require considerable time.

Since attendance is not mandatory at pretrial hearings, unlike formal trial dates, it is unlikely that Mr. Kim or lawyer Nam will appear in court at the second pretrial hearing. At the first pretrial hearing, only former Director Yoo, who is in custody, appeared in court.

The prosecution continues to investigate lobbying related to the so-called '50 Billion Club' even after indicting Mr. Kim and others.

However, the outlook for the investigation is not optimistic, as the court dismissed the arrest warrant for former lawmaker Kwak Sang-do?whose case was considered relatively clear among various lobbying allegations?citing "disputes over the establishment of the crime." Additionally, the investigation has been hampered by the tragic death of former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Development Project Director Yoo Han-gi, a key figure in clarifying the connection between the Daejang-dong project and Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

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