‘Daejang-dong Developer’ Eldest Kim Man-bae May Speak... Released on the 24th

Mr. Kim as the 'Middleman' for Jeong Jin-sang, Kim Yong, and Developer... Explanation of Share Distribution
Possibility of Yudong-gyu and Namuk's Exposure Being 'Useless' Following Mr. Kim's Testimony

Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu involved in the Daejang-dong scandal, is attending the warrant hearing held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on November 3 last year. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] Amid the ongoing expos? battle between former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu and lawyer Nam Wook, the real owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 4, over preferential treatment and lobbying allegations related to the Daejang-dong development, Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu and the eldest among the Daejang-dong developers, will be released on the 24th due to the expiration of his detention period.

Attention is focused on whether Kim will change his stance after his release and make resolute statements about the Daejang-dong-related suspicions, similar to former Director Yoo and lawyer Nam.

On the 23rd, inside and outside the legal community, there is analysis that since Kim, who led the Daejang-dong development project, acted as an intermediary between Jeong Jin-sang, the chief political coordinator of the party leader’s office and a close aide to Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party, Kim Yong, the deputy director of the Democratic Research Institute, and the developers, the pace of the prosecution’s investigation into Lee will be determined depending on Kim’s change in attitude.

According to the testimonies of former Director Yoo and lawyer Nam in the ongoing Daejang-dong trial, Kim appears to have been directly responsible for delivering illegal funds to Chief Jeong and Deputy Director Kim. Furthermore, after the Daejang-dong development, the developers, including lawyer Nam, reportedly received explanations from Kim regarding the distribution ratios of shares.

In the trial held on the 21st, lawyer Nam testified that Cheonhwa-dongin No. 1, a subsidiary of Hwacheon Daeyu, was referred to as the ‘Lee Jae-myung mayor’s office,’ and that he heard from Kim that the developers’ funds flowed to Lee’s side, who was then the mayor of Seongnam. Lawyer Nam also revealed that he received about 2.25 billion won from Lee, one of the Daejang-dong developers, some of which was used as election funds.

Lawyer Nam stated, "At least 400 million won was delivered to Lee Jae-myung’s side (then mayor, now leader of the Democratic Party) during the election period," adding, "20 million won was delivered to Yoo Han-gi, former head of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation’s Development Project Headquarters, and the remaining amount, about 400 to 500 million won, was used as election funds by Kim and former Director Yoo."

Lawyer Nam also testified that part of the funds he received from Lee was passed on to Kim, who then paid the ‘elders’ (Chief Jeong and Deputy Director Kim) through former Director Yoo, and these were used as election funds.

Kim is known to have led the process of dividing shares in the Daejang-dong development project. According to lawyer Nam’s testimony, Kim explained to the developers that out of the total 49% shares of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 1, 37.4% belonged to Lee’s side, and the remaining 12.5% was his own. He testified that Lee’s side referred to Chief Jeong and Deputy Director Kim.

The testimonies of former Director Yoo and lawyer Nam are ‘hearsay evidence,’ meaning they are statements made in court based on what others told them, not from their direct knowledge. If Kim denies the testimonies of lawyer Nam and others, these cannot be recognized as evidence.

Ultimately, if the prosecution does not have evidence supporting the testimonies of former Director Yoo and lawyer Nam, their statements will be rendered ‘useless.’

A current prosecutor general explained, "Except in very exceptional cases, hearsay evidence generally lacks evidentiary power," adding, "No matter what others say, if the party involved says ‘No,’ it cannot be used as evidence."

A lawyer who formerly served as a deputy chief prosecutor also said, "Testimonies in court that say ‘I heard from someone else’ or ‘someone said so’ cannot be evidence," adding, "During the prosecution investigation stage, the prosecutor may assess credibility, but in court, such testimonies are not admitted as evidence, so the court treats them as if they were not heard and as if there is no evidence, meaning they are not subject to credibility assessment."

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