'Daechang-dong 4 Defendants' First Trial Ended in 38 Minutes'... Defense Requests More Time to Review Records

Court Signals Swift Proceedings with 1-2 Weekly Hearings
Only Accountant Jeong Young-hak Admits Charges

Former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu, Hwacheon Daeyu major shareholder Kim Man-bae, and Nam Wook, lawyer and owner of Cheonhwa Dongin No. 4, a subsidiary of Hwacheon Daeyu (from left).
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Legal Affairs Specialist Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Reporter Kim Dae-hyun] The first trial of the so-called 'Daejang-dong Four' who were indicted on allegations of lobbying and preferential treatment in the Daejang-dong development case was held on the 6th, but it ended 38 minutes after it began due to the defendants' side not having reviewed the investigation records yet.

The defense teams of each defendant requested the court to grant sufficient time to review the extensive records, citing delays in accessing and copying the prosecution's investigation records. However, the court stated its intention to hold hearings intensively once or twice a week.

Defense: "Delay in Accessing and Copying Investigation Records... Request for Sufficient Time to Review Records"

The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 (Presiding Judge Yang Cheol-han) conducted the first preparatory hearing at 3 p.m. on the 6th for four individuals: former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu, major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Kim Man-bae, lawyer Nam Wook, owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 4 (a Hwacheon Daeyu subsidiary), and accountant Jeong Young-hak, owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 5.

Unlike formal trial dates, the preparatory hearing does not require the defendants' attendance, so Kim, lawyer Nam, and accountant Jeong did not attend in person; only their lawyers were present. Former Director Yoo, who is detained, attended the hearing.

After confirming the attendance of the defendants and their lawyers, the court first asked the defense teams whether they wished to proceed with a jury trial. Lawyer Nam’s counsel said they had not yet consulted with Nam and postponed the answer, while the defense teams of former Director Yoo, Kim, and accountant Jeong expressed that they did not want a jury trial.

Based on this, the court stated that although lawyer Nam’s position was not yet confirmed, the trial would proceed according to standard procedures and that basic issues would be organized on this day. Regarding former Director Yoo, since a considerable amount of time had passed since his indictment compared to the other three defendants whose cases were consolidated, the court said it had no choice but to schedule the preparatory hearing promptly.

However, when the court asked whether the defendants had sufficient opportunity to review the investigation records, the defense teams replied, "Access and copying have not yet been completed."

Reluctantly, the court requested the prosecution to cooperate so that the defendants could access the records as soon as possible to exercise their right to defense, then asked the prosecution to present the gist of the charges. The court also sought to confirm the defendants’ positions on the prosecution’s charges and the expected witnesses, but the defense teams said they were not yet prepared and asked for understanding, promising to clarify their positions at the next hearing.

However, Kim’s defense counsel said, "The charges differ by defendant, but it seems the list of evidence is the same."

In response, the court said, "There may be differences in the evidence list for each defendant, but in Kim’s case, the scope of the evidence list may be the broadest among them. If necessary, some evidence can be separated, so please review that point."

Kim’s defense lawyers requested the court to allow sufficient time to review the vast evidence. They also expressed difficulties in exercising the right to defense as the prosecution’s investigation continues even after the indictment.

Kim’s defense counsel said, "This case involves extensive investigation, so the defendant needs sufficient time to respond properly. There are 43 volumes of evidence records and testimonial evidence from about 50 people. We ask for enough time to review the prosecution’s vast investigation."

Another lawyer for Kim said, "Even after the indictment, the prosecution continues to summon for questioning. From our perspective, though it is a personal opinion, it is questionable whether the charges already indicted and those under additional investigation can be strictly distinguished."

He added, "Since summons questioning occurs during the trial process, it is difficult for the defendant to exercise the right to defense. If possible, the court could confirm how long the summons questioning will continue during the trial or when additional indictments or definitive investigation conclusions will be made, which would help us prepare for the trial and defense."

Regarding this, the prosecution said at the end of the trial, "There are parts that require investigation, but it is difficult to say that additional indictments are planned."

When the court asked, "So you mean that although the investigation is ongoing, there is no plan or decision for indictment yet?" the prosecution replied, "Yes. That is correct."

The court urged the prosecution, "While related investigations are necessary, please do your best to ensure that the trial proceeds without hindering the defendants’ participation."

Lawyer Nam’s defense counsel said that the parts related to lawyer Nam in the prosecution’s charges were unclear and required additional explanation. They also questioned the evidentiary value of the recorded statements presented by the prosecution as key evidence from accountant Jeong’s side.

The lawyer said, "I will explain in detail later, but the prosecution does not describe any actions by defendant Nam Wook after 2015 and simply connects the entire conspiracy based on the fact that he recommended Jeong Min-yong. Of course, after reviewing the evidence records, we will have to ask for explanations regarding the overall charges."

He added, "The prosecution presents various evidence, but as reported in the media, there are many recorded statements. We must strictly assess their evidentiary value, so sufficient time is necessary."

Accountant Jeong Young-hak’s Side "Admits Charges"... "Will Cooperate in Verifying Credibility of Recorded Statements"

Meanwhile, accountant Jeong Young-hak’s side, which has cooperated with the prosecution’s investigation so far, admitted the prosecution’s charges in court on this day. Future trials are expected to involve a battle of truth between the other defendants?former Director Yoo, Kim, and lawyer Nam?who have denied conspiracy, and accountant Jeong.

Jeong’s defense counsel said, "I am afraid the defendant might be stigmatized by saying this, but we admit parts of the charges. However, since there are differences between the suspect interrogation records and the indictment and our statements, we plan to explain this later through a defense opinion letter."

The lawyer also said, "Although there are difficulties due to the credibility of the recorded statements, we will actively cooperate in the trial so that the substantive facts can be revealed. We generally admit the charges."

Trial to Proceed Once or Twice a Week... Second Preparatory Hearing on the 24th

The court stated, "We will set dates once or twice a week and proceed with intensive hearings. This is the basic stance, and only by doing so can a normal trial proceed."

The court wanted to hold the next preparatory hearing on the 20th, but the defense teams asked if the date could be set after the court’s recess period, citing insufficient time to prepare as they had not yet received the evidence list.

However, the court said, "Even if you prepare roughly as soon as possible, please review while conducting evidence examination. Defendant Yoo Dong-gyu has been indicted for a long time, so it is unavoidable."

It added, "The other defendants are indeed pressed for time, but if you do not hurry, it will be more difficult to exercise the right to defense during the hearing," and set the next preparatory hearing for 10 a.m. on the 24th. The second preparatory hearing is scheduled to be held on the morning of the 24th.

The first preparatory hearing, which started at 3 p.m. on this day, ended at 3:38 p.m.