Supreme Court Confirms Prison Sentence for Former CEO Kim Jong-seung in 'Late Jang Ja-yeon Perjury' Case... Prosecutor's Charges Fully Upheld

The former agency representative was convicted of perjury in a trial related to the late Jang Ja-yeon. The Supreme Court upheld the second trial ruling, which found all five charges brought by the prosecution to be guilty.

On the 20th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Noh Kyung-pil) dismissed the appeal of Kim Jong-seung, the former agency representative of Jang, who was indicted for perjury in the 2012 defamation trial of then-Democratic United Party lawmaker Lee Jong-gul, thereby confirming the original sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment.

Yonhap News

The court explained the reason for dismissing Kim's appeal, stating, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment that violates the principles of logic and experience, exceeds the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misinterprets the principles of the burden of proof, the principle of trial-centeredness, or the legal requirements for perjury."

Kim was accused of perjury for testifying as a witness in November 2012 during the defamation trial of then-Democratic United Party lawmaker Lee Jong-gul.

In 2009, during a National Assembly question session, Lee mentioned the names of executives from Chosun Ilbo in connection with the Jang Ja-yeon case, prompting Chosun Ilbo to respond with civil and criminal lawsuits.

After losing the civil lawsuit, Chosun Ilbo withdrew its criminal complaint against Lee, and in March 2013, the court dismissed the criminal charges.

Before the dismissal of charges, in November 2012, Kim testified as a witness in Lee's criminal trial, stating that he only learned who Bang Yong-hoon, president of Koreana Hotel, was after Jang's death, and that he met him by chance at a drinking party. He also testified that he never assaulted Jang or other affiliated entertainers.

In May 2019, the Ministry of Justice's Past Affairs Committee announced the results of its investigation into the "Jang Ja-yeon list" case and recommended that the prosecution investigate Kim's perjury charges, indicating that his testimony in Lee's criminal trial constituted perjury.

The prosecution, after investigating Kim, found sufficient evidence of perjury and indicted him in July 2019.

In the first trial, the court found Kim guilty on two of the five charges and sentenced him to four months in prison with a one-year probation. Kim consistently denied the charges from the investigation through the trial. During the trial, TV Chosun CEO Bang Jung-oh was subpoenaed as a witness but did not appear. Former president Bang Yong-hoon also did not respond to the subpoena.

The court found Kim's testimony regarding the dinner attended by former president Bang Yong-hoon in October 2007, which both Kim and Jang attended, and the meeting with CEO Bang Jung-oh at a nightclub in October 2008, to be perjury.

The court stated, "It is hard to believe that Jang, who had just started her entertainment career, would have gone to a dinner where Bang Yong-hoon was present without the agency's involvement to greet him herself," and pointed out, "The defendant must have known at least that Bang Yong-hoon attended the dinner."

Furthermore, "Considering the witness's statements, the defendant knew in advance about Bang Jung-oh's meeting and took Jang to the nightclub," which aligns with Jang's phone records, the court added.

However, the first trial court acquitted Kim of the charge related to his statement that he never assaulted Jang or other affiliated entertainers, reasoning that "it should be understood as not frequently assaulting rather than never assaulting," and "the submitted evidence alone cannot conclusively prove it was false."

But in August, the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Appeal Division 4-1 (Presiding Judges Yang Ji-jung, Eom Cheol, Lee Hoon-jae) overturned the first trial's acquittal on all charges and sentenced Kim to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment, ordering his immediate detention.

The court stated, "The defendant, who operated the agency to which the late Jang Ja-yeon belonged and knew the inside story better than anyone, tried to evade responsibility and minimize the incident," and noted, "The defendant even fled to Japan at the time."

It continued, "Considering the testimony in related criminal trials and the defendant's overall attitude in this case, it is doubtful whether the defendant felt any remorse or conscience for the deceased," and added, "As the defendant's responsibility has been recognized in criminal proceedings, it does not appear that the deceased fabricated baseless falsehoods."

The court also said, "Nevertheless, the defendant continued to make false statements, denied the crime even in the appeal, and showed no remorse," and "Given the importance of the defendant's testimony to this case and the circumstances, the case is not minor and the nature of the crime is serious, warranting severe punishment." The court explained that the reason for ordering detention was the risk of flight.

The court stated, "The question posed to the defendant at the time was whether he assaulted once or repeatedly," and added, "It is difficult to accept the lower court's acquittal judgment."

Moreover, the court pointed out, "Although the criminal case against former lawmaker Lee Jong-gul was formally closed due to withdrawal of the complaint, Kim's testimony was closely related to that case," and "Despite operating the agency to which the deceased belonged and knowing the inside story better than anyone, the defendant tried to evade responsibility and hurried to minimize and conceal the incident."

It added, "Considering Kim's attitude in this case, it is doubtful whether he felt any remorse or conscience for the deceased," and concluded, "The nature of the crime is serious, and severe punishment is appropriate."

Previously, Kim was also convicted by the Supreme Court for assaulting Jang Ja-yeon, receiving a sentence of four months imprisonment with one year probation.

The Supreme Court found no problem with the second trial court's judgment.