All Family and Relatives Imprisoned in Detention Center... What Is the Fate of the Last Remaining Jo Guk?

Former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk is attending the continued trial on his children's admission bribery case at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the 14th. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] All family members and relatives have been incarcerated in detention centers. Now, only former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk remains. What will become of his fate?

According to the legal community on the 1st, former Minister Cho was pushed to the brink as his wife, former Dongyang University professor Jung Kyung-shim, received a final guilty verdict from the Supreme Court. This is because many of the charges against Cho include allegations of conspiracy with former Professor Jung. The prosecution included in the indictment that Cho was involved in the falsification and issuance of certificates and commendations related to their daughter Cho Min’s so-called '7 major specs.'

The Supreme Court’s 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) upheld the original sentence of four years imprisonment, recognizing former Professor Jung’s guilt for obstruction of business, violations of the Securities Exchange Act, and the Real Name Financial Transactions Act. A significant factor was the acceptance of the evidentiary value of the Dongyang University break room PC presented by the prosecution.

Now, attention turns to the first trial court handling former Minister Cho’s case. Among the courts that reviewed the cases involving Cho’s family, only this court did not accept the Dongyang University PC as evidence. The court judged that the prosecution conducted the seizure and search of the PC without guaranteeing former Professor Jung’s right to participate. They based this on a Supreme Court plenary session ruling from November last year. In that case, the Supreme Court plenary ruled that the seizure of voluntarily submitted items without the party’s participation guarantee was illegal, rejecting the use of two mobile phones submitted by a victim of illegal filming as evidence.

However, when delivering the verdict on former Professor Jung’s appeal, the Supreme Court provided a detailed explanation regarding the plenary session’s judgment. It emphasized that the seizure and search process of voluntarily submitted evidence must be judged very strictly and restrictively, affirming the evidentiary value of the Dongyang University PC. It almost seemed like a message implying that the first trial court for Cho Kuk “misunderstood” the matter.

In the appeal of former Professor Jung, the Supreme Court stated, “Information storage media owned or managed by the suspect must be realistically controlled and managed by the suspect at the time of seizure and search or at a time closely related to it, exercising exclusive management and disposition rights over all electronic information contained therein.” It added that this must be objectively and outwardly recognizable at the time of seizure and search. Merely having used the media in the past or having created, used, or been involved with electronic information is not sufficient to recognize the person as a party to the seizure and search.

Based on this standard, the Supreme Court judged that it was difficult to consider former Professor Jung as a party to the seizure and search of the PC located in the Dongyang University break room. The prosecution seized the PC from the break room, not from former Professor Jung’s research office, extracted files such as edited commendation documents stored inside, and submitted them as evidence in court. When judging this entire process, the Supreme Court emphasized that the electronic information inside the PC was closely related to the charges against former Professor Jung, but at the time of seizure and search, the PC did not belong to her ownership or management. Since the PC had been stored in the break room for nearly three years, used as a shared PC, or possibly disposed of arbitrarily, it was judged that Dongyang University had comprehensive management and disposition rights rather than former Professor Jung. Accordingly, the prosecution’s investigative procedures, which allowed Dongyang University officials to participate in the PC forensic work, were also deemed lawful.

Therefore, there is a possibility that the first trial court handling former Minister Cho’s case may overturn its previous decision not to accept the PC as evidence. The case might also be transferred to another court beforehand. Earlier, the prosecution filed a motion to disqualify the court in response to the court’s decision to reject evidence. In any case, these are all variables that work unfavorably for former Minister Cho.

Meanwhile, among those involved in the allegations related to former Minister Cho’s family, four individuals have received final rulings from the Supreme Court. Cho Beom-dong, Cho’s fifth cousin who was charged with violating the Capital Markets Act, was sentenced to four years imprisonment and fined 50 million won, and his younger brother Cho Kwon received a three-year prison sentence, both finalized last year. Kim Kyung-rok, who worked as the asset manager for Cho and his wife, received an eight-month prison sentence with a two-year probation, which was also finalized.

On the 27th of last month, former Minister Cho wrote on his social media account, “It is truly painful,” and “We will bear the trials of my family.”

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