Jeong Kyung-shim Standing in Court, When Asked About Her Occupation, She Says "I am a Professor at Dongyang University"

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The first trial of Jeong Gyeong-sim, a professor at Dongyang University and wife of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, was held on the 22nd at the Seoul Central District Court. Professor Jeong was arrested and indicted last November on charges related to her children's admission fraud and private equity fund suspicions. Earlier, in September of the same year, she was brought to trial on charges of forging Dongyang University certificates. This trial was the court's first formal hearing addressing both cases.

Professor Jeong appeared at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 424 of the Seoul Central District Court. She wore a charcoal-colored coat and a white blouse instead of a prison uniform. As she entered, she lowered her gaze. Her hair hung down, partially obscuring her face. The courtroom murmured as she entered. Three family members, including her children, were seated in the gallery. Her husband, former Minister Cho, was not present.

When Song In-kwon, presiding judge of the 25th Criminal Division handling the case, asked for her occupation to confirm personal details, Professor Jeong replied, "I am a professor at Dongyang University." When asked if she wished for a jury trial, she responded, "No," declining the option.

On this day, admission tickets were distributed to the general public on a first-come, first-served basis. Citizens lined up at the court from early morning to see Professor Jeong, who appeared for the first time in three months since the pretrial detention hearing held at this court in October last year. Due to the large number of attendees, the 34 seats allocated inside the courtroom were insufficient, and standing room was allowed for about ten people.

Before presenting the prosecution's charges, the prosecution stated their position during the trial. "We are well aware that investigations into various corruptions have attracted media and public attention, which may lead to speculation. This case has been investigated with restrained procedures more so than any other case. Our prosecution has conducted the investigation based on objective and clear evidence and will prove this through the trial process," they said. This was a reiteration that the investigation was not indiscriminate or a fishing expedition.

Subsequently, the prosecution and defense engaged in a dispute over the additional indictment concerning the forged certificate case. The prosecution considers the two cases to be the same, but since the court did not allow the amendment of the indictment during the previous preparatory hearing, they proceeded with separate indictments. The defense argued, "This is a clear abuse of prosecution rights," and insisted, "It should lead to dismissal of the charges." On the other hand, the prosecution countered, "There has never been a case where the original indictment was canceled and a new one filed due to disallowance of indictment amendment. The basic facts are the same, and we wanted to amend the indictment, but since the court disallowed it, we had no choice but to file an additional indictment."