Conflicting Statements from the Four Key Figures... Prosecutors Confused Over 'That Person' in the Daejangdong Allegation Recording

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The prosecution, attempting to uncover the identity of 'that person' mentioned in the Jeong Young-hak recording, which appears to be the 'top figure' in the Daejang-dong development preferential treatment and lobbying allegations, seems to be struggling to find any leads.

The prosecution regards the recording as the most important clue and has investigated the core four individuals based on it, but the situation has only become more confusing. The core four have conflicting testimonies and keep reversing their claims during investigations, shaking the prosecution.

According to the legal community on the 24th, on the 21st, the prosecution summoned the so-called 'Daejang-dong four'?lawyer Nam Wook, former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu, major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management Kim Man-bae, and accountant Jeong Young-hak?for a confrontation investigation, presenting parts of the recording submitted by accountant Jeong to the suspects.

According to accountant Jeong's recording, Kim Man-bae reportedly said, "Everyone knows that Cheonhwa-dongin No. 1 is not mine. Half of it belongs to 'that person.'"

During the confrontation investigation, lawyer Nam Wook reportedly testified that 'that person' was former Director Yoo. Although he said in a media interview before returning to Korea that 'that person' was not former Director Yoo, he reversed this during the prosecution's investigation.

On the other hand, Kim Man-bae still denies having made the statement that half of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 1 belongs to 'that person.' After being questioned by the prosecution on the 11th, he told reporters that he mentioned 'that person' to prevent disputes among former business partners, but the next day he reversed his claim, denying having made any statement involving 'that person.' Kim's side also denied the evidentiary value of the recording submitted by accountant Jeong, claiming it was a patchwork.

With these conflicting claims, the effort to identify 'that person' is at a loss. The prosecution has no substantial physical evidence beyond the recording, which is being pointed out as a bigger problem.

However, in the indictment against former Director Yoo, the prosecution viewed that Kim promised to give about 70 billion won to former Director Yoo through one of four methods, including high-priced stock purchases of Yuwon Holdings and direct payment of dividends from Cheonhwa-dongin No. 1. This appears to be based on lawyer Nam's identification of former Director Yoo as 'that person.'