Regarding Participation in Citizen Jury Trials: "Do Not Wish to Participate"
[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The first formal trial regarding the preferential treatment allegations in the Daejang-dong development project was held on the 10th. The so-called 'Daejang-dong Five'?former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu, Hwacheon Daeyu major shareholder Kim Man-bae, Cheonhwa-dongin No. 4 owner lawyer Nam Wook, Cheonhwa-dongin No. 5 owner accountant Jung Young-hak, and lawyer Jung Min-yong?who were indicted in connection with the allegations, all appeared. This was the first time all of them appeared together in court. At the earlier preparatory hearing, which reviewed the admissibility of evidence and witness selection, only former Director Yoo attended.
The trial was held at 10 a.m. at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 (Presiding Judge Yang Cheol-han). This was the first hearing of the case, held about three months after former Director Yoo was first indicted in October last year on related allegations. Former Director Yoo and others wore blue prison uniforms that day. Only lawyer Jung, who was indicted without detention, appeared in court wearing a suit. When asked by the court whether they wanted a jury trial, they all responded, "We do not wish to."
As the trial began, the prosecution displayed a pre-prepared PPT file on the courtroom screen. Instead of reading the indictment aloud, they judged it better to explain the prosecution's summary to the court using the PPT file that organized the charges. However, the court requested the prosecution, "Since the evidence admission procedure has not been completed, please refrain from directly citing the evidence itself."
According to the prosecution, former Director Yoo conspired with Kim and others to grant Hwacheon Daeyu at least 65.1 billion KRW in land development dividend profits and at least 117.6 billion KRW in implementation profits, causing equivalent losses to the corporation. During this process, he is also accused of receiving bribes of 500 million KRW from Kim and 352 million KRW from lawyer Nam and accountant Jung, and promising to receive 70 billion KRW from the Daejang-dong development profits. Lawyer Jung is accused of conspiring with them to structure the project so that Hwacheon Daeyu and Cheonhwa-dongin would receive at least 182.7 billion KRW in profits.
The defense for former Director Yoo denied these prosecution allegations. Yoo's lawyer stated, "We deny all charges including bribery and breach of trust." They argued that Yoo never received bribes and therefore did not commit any acts causing damage to Seongnam City. Former Director Yoo also said, "I will strive to ensure that all facts are revealed through the trial."
Kim and others maintained the same position as former Director Yoo. Kim said, "I deeply apologize for causing social controversy," but added, "I will sincerely participate in the trial and actively cooperate so that the court can determine the substantive truth." Lawyer Nam also said, "I hope the truth will definitely be revealed." Lawyer Jung stated, "I deny all charges and will do my best in the upcoming trial procedures to explain points that do not correspond to the charges."
Unlike them, accountant Jung admitted to the charges. He voluntarily appeared before the prosecution in September last year and actively cooperated with the investigation by submitting 19 recorded conversations related to the Daejang-dong project. At the previous preparatory hearing, accountant Jung was the only one to admit the charges. On this day, he said, "I substantially admit the charges," and "I will truthfully recount what happened during the trial process."
Earlier, the court allowed former Director Yoo and Kim to copy the original recording files of accountant Jung for the defendants' defense during the preparatory hearing. Although the prosecution opposed this citing ongoing investigations, the court ordered the copying to be permitted. However, Kim's side claimed in court that they did not receive all the recording files. The court responded, "That is impossible," and urged again, "The prosecution should expedite the copying process."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
