Jeon Du-hwan's Side: "Bullet Holes in Jeonil Building Not Due to Helicopter Gunfire"… Refuting National Forensic Service's Analysis

Gwangju District Court 6th Trial... Jeon’s Side Submits Bullet Trajectory Analysis Data

Prosecution: "Not All Bullet Marks Result from the Same Cause" Dispute

Former President Jeon Du-hwan, accused of denying the military helicopter shootings during the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement and defaming witnesses, appearing at the appellate trial. / Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Park Jin-hyung] The defense team of former President Jeon Du-hwan (90), who was brought to trial for defamation of the deceased, argued again in the appellate court that "the bullet marks left on the Jeonil Building were not caused by helicopter gunfire."

The Gwangju District Court held an appellate trial for Jeon’s defamation of the deceased charge on the 18th in Criminal Courtroom 201, presided over by the Criminal Division 1 (Chief Judge Kim Jae-geun).

Jeon did not attend the trial due to health reasons.

He was indicted for criticizing the late Father Cho Bi-o, who testified in his memoir that he witnessed helicopter gunfire during the May 18 incident, calling him a "shameless liar unworthy of being called a priest."

Jeon’s defense attorney stated, "The prosecution specified the helicopter that the late Father Cho Bi-o claimed to have witnessed, based on the Ministry of National Defense’s Special Investigation Committee report," adding, "However, the committee could not have identified all helicopters dispatched to Gwangju at that time."

He continued, "The pilots consistently stated that there was no helicopter gunfire," and pointed out, "The prosecution is arguing that helicopter gunfire occurred based on technical aspects."

The defense focused on rebutting by submitting evidence analyzing the trajectory of bullet marks in 3D, arguing that the bullet marks found on the 10th floor of the Jeonil Building were not caused by helicopter gunfire from the counterinsurgency forces.

The defense explained that this material was prepared with expert assistance based on the National Forensic Service’s appraisal report and claimed that there were several bullet marks that could not have been caused by helicopter gunfire.

The defense argued, "Helicopter gunfire is estimated to have been fired from 50 meters ahead, and the aircraft’s altitude rises up to 300 meters above ground," adding, "When simulated and analyzed, the windows would not be visible from that position," thus asserting that downward bullet marks near the 10th-floor window could not have occurred.

They further added, "Considering the angle of the upward bullet marks, if fired from 50 meters away, the helicopter’s position would be underground."

In response, the prosecution explained, "The first trial and the National Forensic Service did not assert that all bullet marks were caused by the same source."

The next trial is scheduled for 2 p.m. on the 29th of next month in the same courtroom, where the closing arguments will be held.