Jung Kyung-shim's 'Children's Admission Fraud', March Sentencing Speculation Amid Presidential Election... Supreme Court in Deliberation

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Supreme Court appeal trial of Jeong Gyeong-shim, former professor at Dongyang University and wife of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, regarding the college admission fraud case involving their children, is emerging as the biggest legal topic of the new year. This case, which caused the public to distrust the current government, could have a significant impact on the presidential election landscape scheduled for March 9, making the timing of the verdict a matter of intense interest.

According to the legal community on the 6th, the Supreme Court’s Second Division, which is handling Jeong’s case, is reportedly deliberating on the timing of the verdict. Meanwhile, some speculate that the verdict might be delivered in mid-March, after the presidential election, known as the 'March verdict theory.'

According to usual practice, Jeong’s case should be decided before mid-next month. This is because in cases where the defendant is detained, the verdict must be delivered before the detention period expires. Jeong’s detention period ends on the 22nd of next month.

However, delivering the verdict before the election could directly influence the election outcome, which is a burden. Whether Jeong’s prison sentence is confirmed or the case is remanded to the High Court, both outcomes could provoke fierce criticism from political circles and others. Accusations that "the Supreme Court interfered in the election" would be unavoidable. Even if Jeong is released from detention and tried without custody after the detention period expires, the Supreme Court is likely to choose to deliver the verdict in March to avoid such unfortunate situations.

Coincidentally, there are reports that Jeong’s health condition is poor, and she is considering applying for a 'suspension of sentence execution.' After attending a trial at the Seoul Central District Court on the 24th of last month, Jeong showed symptoms of a concussion and was hospitalized at an external hospital. It is known that she has suffered from headaches due to a skull fracture sustained in a fall accident while studying in the UK in 2004. In September last year, Jeong also complained of health problems during the trial, and after receiving permission from the court, she stood up but collapsed and was transported to the hospital. If Jeong applies for a suspension of sentence execution and the prosecution accepts it, the obstacle of the detention period will be removed, allowing the Supreme Court to deliver the verdict in March without major issues.

The final judgment on Jeong depends on whether the evidentiary validity of the Dongyang University PC is recognized. This PC contains the forged certificate file of Jeong’s daughter, Cho Min. The prosecution seized the PC, which was discarded in the lounge during a search of Dongyang University, confirmed signs of forgery, and submitted it as evidence in the trial. The first and second trials accepted it as evidence.

However, on the 24th of last month, in the first trial of former Minister Cho, who faces the same charges as Jeong, the court did not recognize the Dongyang University PC as evidence, changing the situation. The court reasoned that the prosecution’s seizure of the PC was illegal because it did not guarantee Jeong’s right to participate. This decision was based on a ruling by the Supreme Court’s full bench in November last year. At that time, the Supreme Court’s full bench ruled that in a case where a woman who was a victim of illegal filming possessed two mobile phones of the perpetrator and submitted them to the police, "the seizure of voluntarily submitted items without guaranteeing the party’s participation is illegal," and thus did not accept the phones as evidence.

This ruling could also affect Jeong’s case. According to it, the evidentiary validity of the Dongyang University PC is unlikely to be recognized in Jeong’s appeal trial. This is especially so because Justice Cheon Dae-yeop, who was the presiding judge in the Supreme Court’s full bench ruling in November last year, is also presiding over Jeong’s case. However, since the first and second trials recognized the evidentiary validity, there remains a possibility that the appeal court might make a similar judgment.

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