Daejang-dong Court Orders Prosecutors to Allow Copying of "Jung Young-hak Recording File"

Accepted Request from Yudonggyu and Kim Man-bae
Prosecution Submits Opinion Stating "Recording Transcript Copying Allowed, but File Copying Not Permitted"

Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Seokjin Choi

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, legal affairs specialist] The court handling the Daejang-dong development lobbying and preferential treatment allegations case has allowed other defendants to copy the recording files of accountant Jeong Young-hak, the owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 5, a subsidiary of Hwacheon Daeyu.

The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 (Presiding Judge Yang Cheol-han) on the 5th ordered the prosecution to permit the defendants, including former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu and Hwacheon Daeyu major shareholder Kim Man-bae, to copy accountant Jeong’s USB files.

The prosecution had submitted an opinion the previous day opposing this, citing ongoing related investigations and the inclusion of third-party statements in the files, warning of significant risks such as privacy violations if leaked externally, but this was not accepted.

The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 is currently consolidating and hearing the case involving former Director Yoo, Kim, accountant Jeong, as well as lawyer Nam Wook, owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 4, and lawyer Jeong Min-yong (former head of strategic projects at Seongnam Urban Development Corporation), who was indicted later.

In the two previous preparatory hearings, only accountant Jeong admitted to the charges, while the other defendants mostly denied the prosecution’s allegations.

At the second preparatory hearing held on the 24th of last month, the prosecution and defendants engaged in a fierce dispute over the copying of the 'Jeong Young-hak transcript' and the 'recording files.'

At that time, the court said based on the opinions submitted by each defendant, “(The defendants) requested permission for viewing and copying the transcript, and since it is a file, copying the file itself is also necessary, but this has not been done yet, so we think it would be better if the prosecution cooperates smoothly as this is also part of our work.”

While the court can enforce copying or duplication of key evidence by order, it expressed a preference for active cooperation between the prosecution and defendants in the trial process rather than unilateral decisions by the court.

At that time, lawyer Nam’s counsel pointed out, “We believe the presiding judge understands that preparing for the trial is realistically difficult,” and added, “If the prosecution does not respond appropriately, we cannot help but state that our right to defense is being infringed.”

However, the prosecution responded, “We have allowed all transcript copying and also permitted viewing of the recording files, providing sufficient opportunity for review,” and requested understanding, saying, “If necessary, we will reproduce the files in court.”

The prosecution emphasized that it must restrict copying of the recording files themselves or full transcript duplication because the files contain conversations of other people and content unrelated to the charges, posing risks of irreparable damage and confusion if leaked.

Nonetheless, the court noted that given the substantial volume of the recording files, merely allowing viewing is insufficient, and since opinions and evidentiary rulings require prior review, it urged the prosecution to actively cooperate with viewing and copying of the transcripts.

The prosecution later submitted an opinion to the court citing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act that limit copying of special media such as audio tapes and computer disks to the minimum necessary scope.

Although the prosecution maintained that the transcripts, not the original recording files containing conversations, could be viewed and copied, the court did not accept this position in order to guarantee the defendants’ right to defense and ensure a swift trial.

In particular, the prosecution reportedly expressed concerns related to recent media reports about the number of calls former Director Yoo made to Jeong Jin-sang, deputy chief of the election campaign office and a close aide to Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, and Kim Yong, general deputy director, before the prosecution’s search and seizure.

Deputy Director Kim issued a statement immediately after the media reports, acknowledging the calls with former Director Yoo but explaining they were for fact-checking. He also claimed the prosecution inflated the number of calls, including missed calls, and asserted this was a clear attempt at election interference.

Accountant Jeong first appeared before the prosecution in mid-September last year when the Daejang-dong investigation began and submitted the recording files he possessed. These files became key evidence unraveling the links between private developers and Seongnam Urban Development Corporation or Seongnam City.

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