Evidence Fabrication in the 'Suncheon Cheongsangari Incident'?... Will a Retrial Be Held?

Supreme Court Holds First Hearing in 11 Years

Junyong Park, Retrial Specialist Lawyer, Says "Prosecutor's Investigation Unfair"

The first hearing to decide whether to initiate a retrial related to the toxic Makgeolli murder case in Suncheon, Jeonnam was held.

Interest is focused as the related hearing procedure took place 11 years after the Supreme Court's final ruling.

The 2-2 Criminal Division of the Gwangju High Court (Presiding Judge Oh Young-sang) conducted the first hearing on the 21st to decide on the retrial of A (73) and his daughter B (39), who were convicted by the Supreme Court on charges including parricide and murder.

A and B were prosecuted for delivering Makgeolli mixed with cyanide to C, the wife and mother, in Suncheon, Jeonnam in 2009, resulting in her death.

A and B were acquitted in the first trial due to insufficient evidence, but were sentenced to life imprisonment and 20 years in prison respectively in the second trial, and the sentences were confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Attorney Park Jun-young, a retrial specialist, was appointed as the retrial attorney for A and B.

On this day, Attorney Park requested the initiation of the retrial on the grounds that the prosecutor at the time conducted an unfair investigation and deliberately concealed evidence favorable to the retrial applicants.

He cited the Supreme Court's ruling that "if the prosecution discovers evidence favorable to the defendant, it must be submitted to the court," and mentioned that favorable evidence related to the key issue of "cyanide" was not submitted in this case.

Additionally, the prosecution claimed in their appeal brief that they secured multiple statements asserting that cyanide is used as a means to exterminate pests in cucumber farming, arguing that A cultivated cucumbers and used cyanide in the crime.

However, Attorney Park pointed out that "statements from more than 50 farmers denying the use of cyanide in cucumber farming were ignored."

Considering the conflicting testimonies, it appears that A's possession and storage of cyanide are contradictory.

Attorney Park also explained that a plastic spoon, presumed to have been used to transfer cyanide according to the prosecution's investigation records, was found to have no cyanide detected in the forensic analysis by the National Forensic Service, but related evidence was not submitted to the court.

There was no CCTV evidence confirming A's vehicle movement to purchase Makgeolli at the Suncheon Lower Market, and he stated, "The prosecution falsely claimed there were no records due to technical issues."

He also presented circumstances suggesting that prosecutors or investigators intervened during the defendants' handwritten statement preparation process at the time.

Attorney Park plans to request the prosecutors involved in the investigation as witnesses for cross-examination, and the second hearing is scheduled for May 23.