Former Reporter’s Side “Routine Reporting Activities” Rebuttal
No Evidence of Call Content, Mobile Phone Forensics Likely to Determine Investigation Outcome
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The indictment details of former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae and his junior colleague reporter Baek, who were prosecuted on charges of attempted coercion related to the ‘media-prosecution collusion’ suspicion, have been disclosed.
Although the prosecution did not explicitly name Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon and former reporter Lee as accomplices, the indictment stated that they exchanged contact more than 300 times before and after the crime.
However, the indictment did not include specific details of the conversations between the two.
◆Prosecution recorded number of contacts and call durations but could not reveal content= According to the indictment of former reporter Lee and others released on the 11th, the prosecution stated that from January 26, when Lee began to actively prepare for the crime, until March 22, when he was ordered by the company to stop reporting and ceased the crime, he contacted Prosecutor Han 15 times by phone, 3 times by voice talk, and sent KakaoTalk messages, totaling 327 contacts.
Among these, the prosecution found that before and after Lee sent letters to former VIK CEO Lee Cheol or communicated or met with Lee’s proxy Ji Mo, he contacted Prosecutor Han 9 times by phone, once by voice talk, and sent KakaoTalk messages, totaling 172 contacts.
In particular, the prosecution recorded that on the morning of March 10, when Lee received a KakaoTalk message from proxy Ji stating that “it would be difficult to proceed further,” he had a voice talk call with Prosecutor Han lasting about 10 minutes and 41 seconds, and on the afternoon of March 20, the day after receiving a message saying “Lee Cheol refuses to comply with the tip-off request and will face the prosecution investigation confidently,” he had a phone call with Prosecutor Han lasting about 7 minutes and 13 seconds.
Thus, while the prosecution identified the number of calls, KakaoTalk messages, and call durations exchanged between former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han, the indictment did not specify the content of their conversations.
However, the indictment included that after the March 10 call, Lee called junior reporter Baek and informed him that Prosecutor Han said during their call, “For now, meet and then betray me.”
Meanwhile, former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han’s side maintain that the KakaoTalk conversations between the two were merely routine reporting activities, such as Lee sending article links and receiving comments, and were not directly related to the current media-prosecution collusion case or the ShillaJen investigation.
◆Will ‘conspiracy’ to threaten and coerce an unnecessary act be recognized?= Article 324 of the Criminal Act stipulates that coercion is established when “a person obstructs another’s exercise of rights or forces them to perform an act they are not obliged to do by violence or threats.”
In this case, the issue is whether former reporter Lee coerced former CEO Lee Cheol to report corruption involving ruling party figures such as Yoo Si-min, chairman of the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation.
In Lee’s trial, the key point will be whether the statements made through letters or via proxy Ji, such as “If you do not testify about the corruption information of Yoo Si-min and other ruling party figures, you or your family will face severe punishment related to the ShillaJen investigation,” can be considered ‘threats’ under the coercion charge.
If Lee had said, “If you do not cooperate with the investigation or reporting, I will mobilize a friendly prosecution official to intensify the investigation,” it would clearly be a ‘threat,’ but since Lee said, “If you do not cooperate and remain silent, the ShillaJen prosecution will intensify, and your wife and family may be at risk,” there is room for dispute.
Generally, threats are explained as ‘notification of harm,’ but in Lee’s case, he did not threaten to inflict harm if there was no cooperation; rather, he offered to help prevent harm (such as preventing the wife’s detention), so interpretations may differ on whether this constitutes a ‘threat.’
Since the prosecution indicted Lee for attempted coercion rather than completed coercion, whether former CEO Lee felt intimidated by Lee’s threats is not directly related to the establishment of the crime. The majority view in academia holds that attempted coercion is established in cases where ▲ threats were made but the unnecessary act was not performed ▲ threats were made and the unnecessary act was performed but there is no causal relationship (i.e., the act was not because of the threat) ▲ or the threat itself was only an attempt.
Actual Supreme Court precedents recognizing coercion include a 1993 case where a police officer dispatched to the Blue House’s Civil Affairs Secretary’s office impersonated a presidential relative and threatened a person involved in various interest businesses by saying, “If you refuse, I will hand you over to the Special Investigation Unit of the Security Headquarters,” forcibly retrieving a voting right.
Another case in 2003 involved a golf course management forcing existing members to submit registration applications agreeing to unfavorable revised bylaws, notifying that “members who oppose will not be treated as members,” which was recognized as coercion.
◆Outcome depends on forensic analysis of Han Dong-hoon’s mobile phone= The prosecution did not clearly state in the indictment that Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon conspired with former reporter Lee.
However, the 24-page indictment mentions Prosecutor Han 30 times, showing an effort to highlight the collusion relationship with Han to the court.
Among the criminal facts recorded in the indictment, the following appear to be circumstances the prosecution considers suspicious of collusion with Prosecutor Han.
First, on February 13, former reporter Lee and reporter Baek visited the Deputy Chief Prosecutor’s office at the Busan High Prosecutors’ Office in Yeonje-gu, Busan, and met Prosecutor Han, with whom they had a conversation.
This content has already been disclosed through a transcript of a recording file made by reporter Baek.
At that time, Prosecutor Han responded to Lee’s statement, “I am having Baek look for Yoo Si-min and also looking for former CEO Lee Cheol’s wife,” by saying something to the effect of, “If I were you, I would do the same; it’s worth trying.”
However, Lee’s side claims that the phrase “If I were you, I would do the same” is not in the transcript but was included in the indictment, alleging problems in the prosecution’s editing process of the transcript.
Also, when Lee and others informed Prosecutor Han of their reporting progress, Han said something to the effect of, “If you get caught once or twice doing that, it’s fine.”
The indictment also recorded that Lee indirectly quoted Prosecutor Han’s remarks during a call with junior reporter Baek.
After the March 10 call with Prosecutor Han, Lee called Baek and said, “I told him, ‘If you don’t write the article, it’s fine, but I can’t threaten,’ and ‘I haven’t received anything yet,’ and Prosecutor Han said, ‘For now, meet and then betray me.’”
Also, on March 20, Lee called Baek again and said that when he told Prosecutor Han, “The former CEO’s side is asking the prosecution to mediate. They want to make a deal,” Han replied, “Okay, then I’ll let it go. No, it’s better for Beomjeong to handle it than me.”
This content also appears in a recording file and transcript that Lee directly showed to proxy Ji at the Channel A office on March 22, two days later. That is, although Lee did not explicitly name Prosecutor Han, he hinted by saying, “There’s a close aide of Yoon Seok-youl named Han something,” and said, “Of course, it will go in a good direction; basically, we are on the same boat (with the prosecution), so I can connect you, report, and use that to contact Beomjeong.”
In any case, the contents recorded by the prosecution in the indictment are insufficient in many respects to prove that the two conspired in advance to threaten former CEO Lee.
Especially since Prosecutor Han’s voice was not directly recorded but relayed by former reporter Lee, it is unlikely to be easily admitted as evidence in court.
Therefore, the success or failure of this investigation is expected to be decided by how meaningful conspiracy evidence the prosecution can find in the forensic analysis of Prosecutor Han’s mobile phone, which is currently underway.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
