Debt Non-Payment Assault 'Yang Eun-i Faction Boss' Jo Yang-eun Acquitted Due to Lack of Evidence

▲ Jo Yang-eun

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] Jo Yang-eun (72), the boss of the 'Yang-eun faction,' who was indicted for threatening a debtor with a gun and assaulting him for not repaying money, was acquitted.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) announced on the 11th that it upheld the lower court's ruling of not guilty in the appeal trial of Jo, who was charged with violating the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts, etc. (group and weapon-related injury).

Jo was accused of assaulting debtor A (male) in Angeles, Philippines, in 2013 by pointing a silenced pistol at his head, forcing him to undress, repeatedly hitting A's entire body with the pistol handle and his hands and feet, and burning his body with a cigarette lighter over a period of three hours. It was investigated that Jo committed this crime after lending money to a person introduced by A, whom a friend had met, and not receiving repayment.

The first trial recognized Jo's guilt and sentenced him to three years in prison. However, the second trial ruled Jo not guilty, stating that "the testimony of the key witness, victim A, lacks evidentiary value." A's absence from court testimony in the second trial had a significant impact. A testified about the victimization during police and prosecution investigations and appeared as a witness in the second hearing of the first trial but did not attend from the fourth hearing onward, citing difficulty testifying while seeing Jo. Although A initially agreed to appear as a witness upon the prosecution's request in the second trial, he changed his address and did not respond to contact attempts.

Accordingly, the second trial court did not accept A's testimony from the first trial, following the principle that "evidentiary value is granted to the victim's testimony only when the defendant's right to cross-examination is exercised." It also found that the victim's statements during police and prosecution investigations did not meet the requirement of being made in a "particularly credible state," which is necessary to recognize evidentiary value.

The Supreme Court found no legal error in the second trial's judgment and upheld it as is.