Yoo Dong-gyu, Kim Man-bae, and Nam Wook Deny Charges in Court... Tense Exchange with Prosecution over 'Recording' Copy

'Daechang-dong Trial' to be Held Once a Week
Attorney Jeong Min-yong to Conduct Joint Hearings

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

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] On the 24th, Yoo Dong-gyu, former Planning Director of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, Kim Man-bae, major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, and Nam Wook, lawyer and owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 4, a subsidiary of Hwacheon Daeyu, who were indicted in connection with the Daejang-dong development lobbying and preferential treatment allegations, all denied the charges.

The court concluded the preparatory hearing on this day and decided to proceed with the formal trial starting from the 10th of next month. A tense exchange occurred between the prosecution and the defendants regarding the copying of the 'transcripts' and the 'recording files' themselves, which are key evidence submitted by accountant Jeong Young-hak, owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 5.

At the second preparatory hearing held in the morning under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 (Presiding Judge Yang Cheol-han), Yoo’s defense attorney stated, "All decisions and executions of the Daejang-dong project were made prioritizing the interests of Seongnam City," and "We generally deny the charge of breach of trust."

The defense also denied the bribery promise or receipt charges based on conspiracy to breach trust, including the allegation of receiving 35 million KRW in bribes in 2013, adding, "We will submit detailed matters in writing."

Kim’s defense attorney also said, "We deny all charges," and "We will clarify our specific position in detail later."

When the court asked, "Are you saying there was no breach of trust by Yoo, so the defendant is also not guilty, or that there was no specific act of conspiracy or participation with Yoo?" the defense replied, "Both."

Nam Wook’s defense attorney stated, "The prosecution has not specifically identified when or how defendant Nam Wook conspired or participated in breach of trust, making it impossible to defend. If the prosecution clarifies this, we will respond, but it seems the breach of trust charge does not hold, and the defendant did not participate."

Earlier, at the first preparatory hearing on the 6th, the three defendants had withheld their position on the prosecution’s charges, citing insufficient review of the records. Now, with all three defendants denying the charges, a truth dispute between accountant Jeong, who has admitted most charges in court, and the other three defendants has become inevitable.

The court also noted, "Since the defendants’ positions differ significantly in this case, testimonial evidence will be most important between the other defendants and accountant Jeong."

The court asked Nam’s defense whether they wished to proceed with a jury trial, and the defense stated that Nam also does not wish for a jury trial.

Regarding the question from Kim’s defense about whether the case of Jeong Min-yong, lawyer and former Strategic Business Director of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, who was indicted late on the 21st, would be consolidated, the court said, "It has been assigned to our court," and "We will soon decide on consolidation and plan to proceed together at the next hearing."

To expedite the trial, the court decided not to hold further preparatory hearings and to proceed with the trial on the 10th of next month. The court requested the defendants to establish and submit their plans for witness examination order and evidence presentation at the first trial date. The court also expressed plans to hold trial dates preferably every Monday.

Meanwhile, during the hearing, the defendants engaged in a tense exchange with the prosecution over the copying of the so-called 'Jeong Young-hak transcripts' and the 'recording files.'

Nam’s defense attorney said, "We understand the court’s procedural decision, but realistically, trial preparation is difficult, and we believe the presiding judge understands this. If the prosecution does not respond appropriately, we must state that our right to defense is being infringed."

Based on the defendants’ submitted opinions, the court said, "They requested permission to review and copy the transcripts and the files themselves, but this has not been done. While it is also our responsibility, it would be better if the prosecution cooperated smoothly in such cases."

Although the court can order forced copying or duplication of key evidence, it hopes both prosecution and defendants actively cooperate in trial proceedings rather than the court making unilateral decisions.

In response, the prosecution said, "We have allowed all transcript copying and permitted review of the recording files, providing sufficient opportunity for examination," and "If necessary, we will play the recordings in court, so please understand."

The prosecution emphasized that copying the recording files or full transcript duplication must be restricted because the files contain conversations of other people and content unrelated to the charges, posing an irreparable risk and potential confusion if leaked.

However, the court noted that given the substantial length of the recordings, mere permission to review is insufficient. To provide opinions and make evidentiary rulings, prior review is necessary, so the court urged the prosecution to actively cooperate with transcript review and copying.

The court expressed that it would be preferable for the prosecution to allow this by mid-next week, and if appropriate measures are not taken by late next week, the court would have to make a judgment, though it considers such a process undesirable.

Nam’s defense attorney also complained about practical difficulties in reviewing case records due to COVID-19-related detention center closures or visitation restrictions. The defense said, "There are over 30,000 pages and complex materials, but due to COVID restrictions, if materials are placed in the solitary cells of defendants, the space is so cramped that there is barely room to sleep," adding, "In such conditions, the amount that can be reviewed daily is limited, and it would take a month to see everything."

The prosecution requested the court to move the trial to a larger courtroom, citing insufficient seats in the courtroom, which prevents prosecutors who need to participate from attending.

When the prosecution asked, "How about moving the trial to a larger courtroom?" the court responded, "It seems there are too many practical concerns in handling a case with significant social suspicion," and "The court’s reality is that we have to use broadcast courtrooms as an alternative for large trials."

The court added, "If absolutely necessary, after March, considering courtroom conditions, we will consider moving to a larger courtroom, but it seems difficult in the short term."

The prosecution said, "We think the defense attorneys are also uncomfortable, but from the prosecution’s side, the number of witnesses and prosecutors attending on the day is limited, so it would be good to have related measures."

The court said, "Only a very limited number of journalists, family members, and such can enter the courtroom, and others will watch via broadcast courtroom. The seating area must be reserved mainly for prosecutors and defense attorneys," adding, "We will prepare accordingly."

When the prosecution requested, "Please secure at least one more prosecutor seat. Today, five were supposed to come, but only four came. If five come, there is no seat, so we wanted to mention this," the court said, "We will consider it."

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