Jung Jin-woong, Research Fellow at the Judicial Research and Training Institute (left), and Han Dong-hoon, Minister of Justice. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The acquittal of Jeong Jin-woong, a research fellow at the Legal Research and Training Institute (54, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 29), who was prosecuted for assaulting and injuring Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon during a search and seizure operation, has been finalized.
The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Park Jeong-hwa) dismissed the prosecution's appeal and upheld the lower court's verdict of not guilty in the final hearing for Jeong, who was charged with official assault under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes.
The court stated, "The lower court found it difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent to commit official assault and that the victim sustained injuries due to the defendant's actions, thus acquitting on both the principal and alternative charges. There is no error in the lower court's judgment in terms of insufficient examination, violation of the rules of logic and experience, or misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding intent and injury in official assault under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes," explaining the reasoning.
Jeong was non-detained indicted on July 29, 2020, on charges of official assault under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes for allegedly assaulting Minister Han and causing injury during the seizure of a newly purchased mobile phone's SIM card after the first search and seizure by the prosecution.
At the time, Jeong, along with another prosecutor and four investigators, conducted the search and seizure on Minister Han. While reviewing the search warrant, Minister Han attempted to call his lawyer with Jeong's permission to have the lawyer participate in the execution of the warrant. However, Jeong mistakenly believed that Minister Han's act of unlocking his phone's password was an attempt to destroy evidence by deleting apps like KakaoTalk or Telegram. Jeong then lunged at Minister Han, who was sitting on a sofa, forcibly trying to take back the phone. Both fell to the floor together, with Jeong pinning Minister Han down.
The prosecution, based on Minister Han's medical certificate, judged that he sustained injuries such as a ligament sprain in the neck requiring three weeks of treatment, applying the charge of official assault under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes.
Jeong was the chief prosecutor of the Criminal Division 1 at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, responsible for investigating the so-called 'Channel A coercion attempt' case, also known as the 'prosecutor-media collusion' case, but unusually went directly to the Legal Research and Training Institute's Yongin branch, where Minister Han worked, to conduct the search and seizure, leading to this incident.
Notably, then-Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae stated that "there is more than enough evidence" regarding the prosecutor-media collusion, and Jeong said, "We have secured many important pieces of evidence during the investigation and are substantially approaching the substantive truth of the prosecutor-media collusion." Shortly after, Jeong, as the investigation team leader, personally conducted the search and seizure to secure additional evidence, leading to speculation within the prosecution that the investigation team had yet to secure decisive evidence.
First Trial Recognizes Guilt for Official Assault under Criminal Law... Sentenced to 4 Months Imprisonment with 1 Year Probation
The first trial court judged that the prosecution failed to prove that Minister Han sustained injuries, acquitting Jeong of official assault under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes but recognizing guilt for official assault under the Criminal Law, which does not require injury as an element. Jeong was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment with 1 year probation and a 1-year suspension of qualifications.
The court pointed out, "The defendant assaulted the victim based on a subjective judgment that the victim was attempting to destroy evidence, without exercising minimal caution as to whether the use of physical force during the execution of the search warrant was justified. Physical force against the body of the person subject to seizure must be strictly limited not only during detention but also during the execution of search warrants, making the defendant's actions highly blameworthy."
It added, "Moreover, the defendant claimed his actions were justified during the investigation and trial, showing no remorse or efforts to restore the victim."
Article 4-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes stipulates that if official assault under Article 125 of the Criminal Law causes injury, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year.
Article 125 of the Criminal Law (Assault and Cruel Acts) punishes those performing duties related to detention, such as prosecutors or police officers, who assault criminal suspects with imprisonment of up to five years and suspension of qualifications for up to ten years, which is heavier than ordinary assault.
In court, Jeong's defense argued that the 'duty' under Article 125 of the Criminal Law refers to duties related to detention and thus does not apply to acts during search and seizure, and that Jeong lacked intent for official assault, but these arguments were rejected.
They also argued that even if the elements of official assault were met, the act was justified under Article 20 of the Criminal Law or that there was a mistake of fact regarding justification (a type of mistake of fact negating intent), but these claims were also rejected.
Second Trial: No Proof of Intent for Official Assault... Overturns First Trial and Acquits
However, the second trial reversed the outcome.
The second trial court rejected the remaining defense claims (duty-related, justification, mistake of fact) but, unlike the first trial, found it difficult to recognize Jeong's intent or even conditional intent for official assault and acquitted him.
The court stated, "Based solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had intent (including conditional intent) for official assault at the time of the incident. The defendant's appeal on this point is valid," explaining the reasoning.
The court noted that before the search and seizure, Jeong expected, based on reports from investigators, that Minister Han would unlock his iPhone using facial recognition and immediately call his lawyer. When Minister Han appeared to enter a password, Jeong mistakenly believed he was deleting KakaoTalk or Telegram conversations or uninstalling the apps. Therefore, at the time Jeong first tried to seize Minister Han's phone, his intention was only to secure the phone to achieve the search's purpose.
Although Jeong continued to try to seize the phone even after both fell to the floor with their bodies overlapping and Minister Han pinned beneath him, considering their positions and the sofa's height, it was possible that Jeong lost balance while moving in the direction Minister Han was avoiding, causing him to fall on top of Minister Han.
The court stated, "It cannot be ruled out that the force accompanying the defendant's fall combined with the victim's posture, who was reaching out with the opposite hand, caused both to slip from the sofa to the floor."
In conclusion, the court judged, "It is difficult to conclude that the defendant had the internal intention to recognize and accept the risk of causing physical force to the victim's body during the process of securing the phone."
However, the court pointed out, "Objective verification immediately after the incident suggests no attempt by the victim to destroy evidence, so the defendant's actions cannot be considered appropriate."
The Supreme Court also agreed with the second trial court's judgment.
Channel A Case Investigation Team Leader: "Some Prosecutors' Wrongful Prosecution... Must Take Responsibility"
Immediately after the Supreme Court's acquittal ruling, Lee Jeong-hyun, a research fellow at the Legal Research and Training Institute and former first deputy chief prosecutor at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office who led the 'Channel A coercion attempt' investigation team, issued a statement expressing respect and gratitude to the judiciary for the wise ruling aligned with law and justice regarding the wrongful prosecution by some prosecutors.
He said, "The physical contact between former chief prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong and former Minister Han Dong-hoon, the basic fact of this case, was an accidental incident that occurred during the lawful execution of official duties to seize an additional SIM card after Minister Han refused to cooperate with judicial procedures by remaining silent about his phone password amid the Channel A prosecutor-media collusion investigation."
He added, "Nevertheless, former Minister Han, who was the suspect, defined the prosecutor's lawful official act as malicious 'power violence' to undermine the legitimacy of the Channel A investigation, filed a complaint, and some prosecutors accepted this claim under circumstances difficult to understand, leading to prosecution that was ultimately acquitted by the judiciary's accurate judgment."
Lee emphasized, "It is now time for responsible people in the Ministry of Justice and prosecution involved in this prosecution to apologize to former chief prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong and the public. Furthermore, those who forcibly changed the lead prosecutor and unjustly prosecuted the investigation team must bear appropriate responsibility."
Han Dong-hoon: "Difficult to Accept but Respect Supreme Court Ruling"... "Must Reflect to Avoid Repeating Mistakes"
Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon expressed on the 30th his position regarding the Supreme Court's acquittal of Jeong Jin-woong, who was prosecuted for assaulting and injuring him during a search and seizure, stating, "It is difficult to accept from the victim's perspective, but I respect the Supreme Court's final ruling."
In a personal statement issued immediately after the Supreme Court's verdict, not as Minister of Justice, Han said, "While the ruling acknowledged the wrongful use of physical force, it denied intent for that use, artificially separating the momentary physical act from intent, which is difficult to accept from the victim's perspective. However, as it is the Supreme Court's final ruling, I respect it."
He added, "Moreover, unlike the first trial's guilty verdict, the appellate court, which acquitted, pointed out that it did not recognize the justification of the duty execution at the time and emphasized the need for deep reflection on the defendant's shortcomings during the warrant execution and the pain the victim had to endure. I believe that reflecting to avoid repeating such mistakes is the proper attitude of a public official."
Meanwhile, Minister Han, who was investigated in the 'Channel A coercion attempt' case, was cleared of charges, and former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae, who was prosecuted, was acquitted in the first trial and is undergoing the second trial.
Official Assault Investigation Team: "Respect Judiciary's Judgment... Regret Distortion of the Essence"
The investigation team that handled Jeong's official assault case issued a statement saying, "The investigation team respects the judiciary's judgment," but added, "We regret that the court's acquittal ruling, which denied only the defendant's intent while separating it from the wrongful use of physical force, was not accepted despite our best efforts to maintain the prosecution through appeal."
They continued, "The investigation team filed the indictment based on objective evidence such as eyewitnesses and legal principles after conducting the investigation according to due process. The first trial court recognized guilt for official assault, and the appellate court, while acquitting, did not recognize the justification of the defendant's duty execution at the time and urged deep remorse and sincere reflection. Nevertheless, the defendant and others are repeatedly making false claims without sincere apology or reflection, distorting the essence of the matter, which is deeply regrettable."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
