Trial of Cho Kuk couple on 'admission corruption' charges to resume next month after 5 months

Former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk / Photo by Jang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The trial of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk and his wife, Professor Jeong Gyeongshim of Dongyang University, who are accused of 'admission bribery involving their children,' will resume after five months.

According to the court on the 4th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 21-1 (Presiding Judges Ma Seongyoung, Kim Jeonggon, Jang Yongbeom) will hold a continuation hearing for the couple on the 3rd of next month.

Previously, the prosecution filed a motion to disqualify the trial panel citing 'biased proceedings,' but after two rejections, they ultimately abandoned the appeal. As a result, the existing trial panel will continue to hear the case.

The trial of the couple had not been held since January 14, when the prosecution filed the motion to disqualify the panel, claiming that "the trial panel reached a biased conclusion against the defendants and proceeded with the trial based on it." The main reason for the prosecution's motion was the panel's decision to exclude evidence such as the Dongyang University lounge PC, following Professor Jeong's side's claim that "the prosecution illegally seized the evidence, rendering it inadmissible."

The panel's decision was based on a ruling by the Supreme Court's full bench in November last year. In a case where a victim of illegal filming had the perpetrator's mobile phone and submitted it to the police, the court ruled that "the seizure of voluntarily submitted items without ensuring the participation of the parties is illegal," and thus did not recognize the evidence's admissibility.

However, earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling recognizing the evidentiary value of the Dongyang University PC and confirmed a four-year prison sentence for Professor Jeong, who was separately indicted on charges including obstruction of business and violation of the Capital Markets Act.

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