Trial of the Five Daejangdong Figures Amid 'Jung Young-hak Recording' Truth Dispute Today and Tomorrow... Verdict by May 21

Court demands 'procedure simplification'
Defense attorneys insist "proceed according to principles"
Prosecution and defendant submit statements
Admissibility of transcript evidence to be decided last

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporters Kim Hyung-min, Kim Dae-hyun] The trial involving Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management (Hwacheon Daeyu), lawyer Nam Wook, and accountant Jeong Young-hak, related to allegations of preferential treatment and lobbying in the Seongnam City Daejang-dong development project, is being held for two consecutive days. On the first day, the 24th, a battle over the truth surrounding the ‘Jeong Young-hak recording’ took place.

The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 (Presiding Judge Lee Jun-cheol) held the eighth trial of these five defendants that morning. The court said, "Since the composition of the trial members has changed, we will initiate the trial renewal procedure," but asked both the prosecution and the defendants whether it would be better to simplify the procedure for faster trial progress. Typically, defendants in criminal trials agree to a trial renewal procedure that briefly summarizes previous proceedings. The court also explained, "Since the defendants are in custody, it is necessary to proceed with the trial to conclude before the detention period expires."

However, the defense attorneys strongly insisted, "We must follow the principle." The lawyer for former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu said, "We cannot agree to a simplified process," adding, "This case involves extensive records and the issues are highly contentious regarding fact-finding." He further stated, "If all three judges have changed, I believe the principled method should be followed. I understand that the investigation can only be conducted by playing back the entire recording file."

On the other hand, the accountant Jeong’s defense team expressed support for simplifying the trial renewal procedure. Jeong’s lawyer said, "I think it is somewhat inefficient to renew the procedure by playing back all the recorded files from the witness examination," and added, "Even if we follow legal procedures, I think there is a somewhat simplified procedure."

The court decided to speed up the trial and deliver a verdict before May 21, when the detention period for all defendants expires. However, the court is cautious regarding the Jeong Young-hak recording. At every trial, the court has emphasized, "The evidentiary value of the recording must be strictly examined," and has continuously requested the prosecution and defendants to submit written opinions. After coordinating these opinions, the court plans to conduct Jeong Young-hak’s interrogation near the end of the trial and decide whether to admit the recording as evidence. At the trial on the 14th, the court also stated, "The final judgment on the evidentiary value of the recording will be made at the end."

The credibility of the Jeong Young-hak recording has recently declined significantly outside the courtroom. Political circles have been engaged in daily ‘truth battles’ over parts of the recording, and the individuals mentioned in the recording have denied its contents. Among those indicted in the Daejang-dong case, except for accountant Jeong, others argue that the recording cannot be admitted as evidence in court. There is also much debate about the identity of ‘that person’ in the recording, the real owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 1, who benefited the most from the Daejang-dong project. The day before, Supreme Court Justice Cho Jae-yeon, identified as ‘that person,’ held a press conference to refute all allegations against him as "groundless." Justice Cho was identified as ‘that person’ because someone wrote his full name with a pen on the recording documents. The recording also reportedly describes ‘that person’ as a sitting Supreme Court justice who served as the head of the Court Administration Office. However, no clear evidence has emerged beyond this. The prosecution reportedly decided not to investigate Justice Cho, judging there was no evidence of wrongdoing. This has led to criticism that the prosecution selectively investigated only some individuals mentioned in the recording.

Amid the overflowing suspicions, there are also criticisms of the prosecution’s inadequate investigation. Given the uncertainty over the recording’s evidentiary value, it is argued that the prosecution should actively seek alternative clues to prove the charges. However, the special investigation team at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office has effectively been ‘closed’ since May 22, after indicting former lawmaker Kwak Sang-do, suspected of involvement in the 5 billion won club scandal, and has postponed further investigations until after the presidential election. Although the door to investigation remains open, the investigation has temporarily halted.

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