Prosecutors Request Jeong Bong-ju's 2nd Trial Court to "Summon Victim as Witness Again"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] In the second trial of former lawmaker Jeong Bong-ju, who was acquitted in the first trial on charges of spreading false information while denying allegations of sexual harassment, the prosecution requested the court to "listen to the victim's testimony and make a judgment."

The prosecution asked the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 6 (Presiding Judges Oh Seok-jun, Lee Jeong-hwan, Jeong Su-jin) to summon the victim again as a witness for cross-examination at the first hearing of Jeong's appeal trial.

The prosecution stated, "The credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial in this case," and added, "If possible, we suggest hearing the testimony in this courtroom."

Jeong was prosecuted on charges of spreading false information after denying reports by the online media Pressian in early March 2018, which claimed that Jeong had forcibly tried to kiss A, an aspiring journalist, at a hotel on December 23, 2011, and sexually harassed her.

At the time, Jeong held a press conference and refuted the allegations, saying, "I never met the victim at the hotel, nor did I harass her. The article is a nationwide scam to defeat me, a blatant lie."

However, he retracted his claim after the credit card usage details from the hotel on that day were revealed.

The prosecution viewed that Jeong defamed the reporter who reported the allegations and spread false information to win the Seoul mayoral election, and thus brought the case to trial.

They also applied charges of false accusation against two Pressian reporters who were sued for spreading false information under the Public Official Election Act.

The first trial court acquitted Jeong of all charges, stating there was no evidence to prove them.

In the appeal trial, the prosecution requested a reassessment of the credibility of A's testimony as a means to overturn the first trial's verdict.

On the other hand, Jeong's defense argued against this, stating, "The transcript of A's witness examination in the first trial was already thorough, spanning about 100 pages."