On May 7, Professor Jeong Kyung-Shim's trial had many impressive scenes. The most featured scene in the media was that the court requested further explanation regarding the comments submitted by the defendant Professor Kyung-Shim Chung. The court demanded that the computer that appears to be used by Professor Jeong-Shim Chung needs further explanation as to why the files related to the Presidential Citation for the University of Tong Yang exist. A high school classmate of Cho Min-guk, the daughter of former Minister of Homeland and Professor Kyung-Shim Jeong, came out as a witness and testified that he had never seen Jo-min at a seminar hosted by Seoul National University's Public Human Rights Law Center. This scene was also mentioned in several articles.

But there was a scene that caught my eye. This happened in the course of the Witness Newspaper of Professor Moe Chung (Chairman of the Korean Society of Pathology), who received relatively less attention among the three Witnesses present. After the prosecution's main sentence and the lawyer's opposition newspaper ended, the court began to ask Professor Chung about what the prosecution and lawyers had not mentioned. It was a question far from the mainstream of the Witnesses' newspaper content on this day, so many media did not notice it, but I thought it was an important scene that revealed the judiciary's approach to one of the key issues of the trial. First of all, let's introduce what kind of question and answer came between the judge and Professor Mo, and then analyze the meaning of this scene.
Why did the

judge confirm the 'admission work experience'? It was about 11:30 a.m. for lunch before the judge started the newspaper. Judge Lim Jeong-yeop, the chief judge, asked.

○ Judge Jung Yeop Lim: Has the
witness been in charge of screening for medical students?


The judge's question was far from the content of the Witnesses newspaper, which had continued until then. Professor Jeong Mo of Catholic University attended because he was the editor-in-chief of the English journal of the Korean Pathology Society, where Cho Min was published as the first author. The main content of the Witness Newspaper was also focused on whether it was possible to see Mr. Jo Min as the first author of a medical thesis, and whether he could actually see the participation in experiments written in the experience confirmation written by the professor at Dankook University School of Medicine. However, when the newspapers of the prosecutors and lawyers were finished, the judge suddenly asked the Witness if he had ever done an entrance examination in college.

● Witness (Professor Jeong Mo, Catholic University of Medicine):
Yes, I participated in the entrance examination.


The judge continued to question the witness's experience in participating in the entrance examination.

○ Judge Jung-yeop Lim:
Was it an undergraduate college student or a graduate school of medicine?

● Witness (Professor
Moh Chung, Catholic University of Medicine): I did both.

○ Judge Jung-yeop Lim:
How long did you do it?

● Witness (Professor Chung Mo of Catholic University of Medicine): For
two years, I was mainly in charge of interviews.


When the witness testified that he had been in charge of student selection, the judge finally entered the main subject of Mr. Jo Min's confirmation of experience.

○ Judge Lim Jeong-yeop:
Please bring up (on the screen) a confirmation letter of (experience) Mr. Cho's activity. (Cho Min's) Presenting the internship confirmation (to the witness). So, have you ever reviewed the internship confirmation when you elected a medical student and a medical student?

● witnesses (Catholic University professor Chung model):
no. I was mainly in charge of personality interviews and was not involved in paper review.

○ Judge Lim Jung-yeop: Have
you ever assessed your abilities by looking at these (internship) confirmations?

● Witness (Professor Moh Chung of Catholic University of Medicine):
Um ... I have never seen and evaluated such data.

○ Judge Jung-yeop Lim:
Wasn't that what the Witnesses were in charge of asking if they had expertise?

● Witness (Professor Chung Mo of Catholic University of Medicine):
That is an aptitude test, but I mainly go to personality…


The judge's intentions seemed clear. To the Witness who is a medical professor who has been involved in the selection of medical graduate students, he tried to confirm, 'If you were a medical professor in charge of Cho Min's selection, how would you judge by looking at the contents of the experience confirmation document?'

However, when Professor Jeong said that he had never been in charge of personality interviews, so that he had never reviewed his internship confirmation documents and evaluated his major experience, the judge tried to close the newspaper without asking further questions. By the way…


"You mean you thought you'd surpass medical students?"

○ Judge Lim Jeong-yeop:
Right. If there is anything you want to say (today) that you haven't said, please tell us.

○ Judge Kim Sun-hee:
Wait a minute. Witness, does this internship confirmation look like a high school student's level of attendance, or is it read as if they were not only involved, but also skilled in research and having a ball in research?


When Judge Jung Jung-yeop, the chief judge, tried to close the Witness newspaper, Judge Sun-hee Kim intervened and began to question again. (Professor Jeong Kyung-Shim is in charge of the 'Deputy Tribunal'. Three chief judges make up the court.) The

witness answered the question of Judge Sunhee Kim.

● Witness (Professor Jeong Mo, Catholic University of Medicine):
I think that it is sincere to say that this internship is usually done by (this student) without (high school student). But the other thing is that the results were used as papers. This is called PCR ... It is difficult for medical students to do. You might have thought that you did a pretty good job (if this was on your internship confirmation).

○ Judge Sunhee Kim:
(Is that the student who submitted this internship confirmation) was a good student and thought he was about to surpass medical students?

● Witness (Professor Moh Chung, Catholic University of Medicine):
I think that's what you're looking at.


Through this question, Judge Jung Hyeok Lim and Judge Sunhee Kim tried to confirm, 'When a professor of medical school saw an internship confirmation document submitted by Cho Min during the entrance exam at Busan National University, especially, a professor at a medical school who had participated in student selection It seems to have been the time to make a judgment about the student's qualities. '

Why did the two judges try to confirm this passage? From the conclusion, the key issue of the trial was whether 'there was a misunderstanding or misunderstanding about the quality of Jo Min's qualities because of the data reflecting the contents of Jo Min's experience activity confirmation and internship confirmation submitted by Professor Jung Kyung Shim'. Because it is one of.
"False information is cheating" vs "Some exaggeration is not false"

Prosecutor Chung Kyung-Shim's charges regarding the alleged misappropriation of the prosecution are "obstruction of public officials by hierarchies." Generally speaking, when it comes to obstruction of public affairs, it is often thought of as a physical act, such as a drunk person assaulting a police officer. However, in this case, "public affairs" refers to the work of a public institution, the National University (Seoul National University-Pusan ​​National University), especially student selection. The prosecution accused Professor Kyung-Shim Chung of interfering with the entrance examination of the National University and charged him with "obstruction of public officials".

At the same time, the prosecution alleges that Professor Chung Kyung-shim interfered with the execution of public officials by using "cheating", that is, "by hierarchy." What is the deception (hierarchy) that the prosecution says? This means that Professor Chung Kyung-Shim submitted a document containing false information to the person in charge of student selection at Pusan ​​National University, and that the evaluator used tricks (hierarchy) to believe and evaluate the false information in the material as a fact. In other words, the prosecution alleges that Prof. Kyung-Shim Chung used cheating (hierarchy) to interfere with the entrance examination of the National University, a public institution, because the information contained in the materials submitted by Jo Min was false.

The defendant, Professor Kyung-Shim Chung, does not accept the prosecution's claim at all. Prof. Kyung-Shim Chung insists that there may be some exaggeration in the contents of Jo Min's experience activity confirmation or internship confirmation, but it is not false. For example, at the International Academy of Birds, the contents of the experience activity confirmation that Mr. Jomin published a poster paper and the poster that Jo Minn published was included in the presentation paper was not false.

Regarding the first author of a controversial medical paper, the fact that it was listed as the first author of a medical paper is not included in the data submitted to the Busan National University Medical Center, so it is not related to the charges of obstruction of public officials due to hierarchies, and Dankook University researchers Prof. Kyung-Shim Chung claims that the contents of the experience activity confirmation that they participated as part of or experimented together are not false.


What was identified as "not true",

however, despite the fact that many prosecutors and lawyers made contradictory claims in relation to the contents of the experience activity confirmation document, at least some of the contents of Jomin's experience activity confirmation statement were true. This has already been confirmed through the trial process. In particular, on the April 22 trial, the judge actually concluded, "It's different from the truth," about some specific details through the process of interrogating witnesses.

## During the afternoon of April 22nd ##
: Witness newspaper for Professor Kim Mo of Gongju University who has written a confirmation letter for Mr. Jo Min's experience

○ There were three things that a judge's
Witness (Professor of Gongju University) asked Jo Min to do (see August 2008 in the mail Jo Min wrote to the Witness): writing a feeling of eloquence, raising plants (at home), and raising fish (at home). . However, according to the (Jomin's) experience activity confirmation from July 2007 to February 2008, it says, "Red plant culture practice" and "I have completed training for two weeks since then. It's being cultivated successfully. " Is this definitely different from the truth?

● Witness (Professor Kim Mo of Kongju University)
Yes, the section manager is severe.

○ Judge
(from Jo Min's March 2008 to February 2009 experience activity confirmation document) It is not true that he spent much time during the March 2008 vacation, right?

● Witness (Professor Moo Kim, Kongju National University)
Yes

○ Judge
In March 2009, the activity confirmation document reads "molecular biological detection practice of genes related to cultivation and composition of red algae plants and aids in the creation and modification of academic data." Here, "active activity" What is it?

● Witnesses (Professor Kim Mo of Kongju University)
participated faithfully.



## During the trial on the morning of April 22 ##
: The first author of the paper abstract (same as poster) that Jo Min published as co-author.


When explaining to a judge (Jo Min-yi), what explanation did you give?


I briefly explained how to witness (first author of the paper) .


Did you explain anything about the judge's experiment?

● Witnesses (first author of the paper abstract)
It seems that they did not give details about the details of the experiment or methods.

○ When the judge's
Witness was watching, you said that he was changing water under the direction of the Witness. Do you have to be there to witness (change)? You can't do it alone, right?

● Witness (first author of the paper abstract)
I can give (to change water) and leave the room for a while, but I think it is difficult for (Chomin) students to come and judge for themselves.




Attorney "Experience activity confirmation, socially acceptable degree"

However, even if some of the contents of the experience activity confirmation are exaggerated, Professor Jeong-Shim Jeong is a deception (hierarchy) that causes misunderstandings or misunderstandings to the medical school entrance examination staff , He claims that it cannot be regarded as an "exaggeration" that is significant enough to influence Mr. Cho's judgment on qualities. Attorney Kim Chil-jun, a lawyer for Professor Kyung-shim Jeong, emphasizes several times in a briefing against reporters.

○ Attorney Kim Chil-jun (Prof. Kyung-Shim Jeong)
/ After briefing on April 22, when Gongju Univ

. There may be such a question as to what extent this is acceptable, but at least it is a high school student's experience activity confirmation, so if you focus on that (high school student's experience activity) confirmation point, I think that it has been achieved and accepted socially. Will do. "

○ Attorney Kim Chil-jun (Prof. Kyung-Shim Jeong)
/ Briefing for reporters after the April 29 hearing of Dankook University's experience confirmation letter

"The lawyer is still a high school student, not an internship as a high school student. The most important thing is the internship certificate, the experience confirmation, and whether these are false enough to be legally punished. (I spoke clearly during the trial.) "



Issue: Is the confirmation of experience activity that includes "exaggerated expressions" or "falsifications" a "cheat"?

Therefore, the issue is that the “some exaggerated expression” (proclaimed by Professor Kyung-Shim Chung) or “false fact” (prosecutor's claim) contained in the confirmation document of Mr. Jomin, who was a high school student, was asked for the qualifications of students We can sum up whether we can see it as deception enough to cause misunderstandings and make wrong decisions. If so, how much "exaggeration" or "falsification" must exist in the documents submitted by the student during the entrance examination process in order to be considered as a "crime of public execution by hierarchies" (cheating)?

Of course, it is up to the judges to judge this. Nevertheless, there are materials worth considering. This is the Supreme Court's precedent for the 'crime of obstruction of public service by hierarchies.' The Supreme Court interprets the requirements of hierarchies (cheating) relatively strictly so that crimes can only be established if the act in question actually causes "false acts or dispositions" in relation to the execution of public officials. It is said that it is not a crime if it has not been done until it is difficult.

"Hierarchy in the offense of public execution by hierarchy refers to the use of misunderstanding, misunderstanding and site by causing the other person to mislead, misunderstand, and site in order to achieve the purpose of the actor's actions. If the criminal act does not lead to a specific public execution or to make it difficult, it will not be punished for hijacking the public. [Judgment of 2002. 02. 11. 2002 20024242] According to

this precedent, in order for the crime of public execution due to the hierarchy of Professor Chung Kyung-Shim to be established, Professor Jeong Kyung-Shim's experience confirmation submitted to all members of Pusan ​​National University (or this content) 1) must have exaggerated expressions or false facts in 2) and 2) exaggerated expressions or false facts may cause students' selection personnel to “misunderstand, misunderstand, and site” the quality of Mr. Jo Min. It should be judged that it was the factor that caused the "false act or disposition" such as high evaluation.

In light of this, the question asked by the chief judge Lim Jeong-yeop and Kim Seon-hee at the hearing on May 7 against the Catholic Medical School professor, as mentioned earlier, was included in the confirmation of the experience activities, including the misunderstanding of Mr. Cho's qualities. It seems to have been done to see if there is a possibility of causing the ", site". As revealed in Judge Kim's question, a professor at a medical school who read the contents of Jo Min's experience confirmation ("actually conducting an enzyme polymerization reaction test using a patient's sample") to evaluate the student's qualities I was trying to check if it would work.

In the process, the judge asked the witness, "Do you mean that the high school student who submitted this confirmation of internship was a good student and would have surpassed medical students?", And the Catholic medical professor witness said, I feel like that. " If you look at the question and answer, you may be able to interpret that the Catholic medical professor, who was a Witness, would have caused "misunderstanding, misunderstanding, and site" if he was the student selection officer responsible for Cho's evaluation.


Why is it necessary for attendance at the entrance examination of all

medical doctors, but the professor of pathology at the Catholic University of Medicine, who was asked by the two vice judges, is not the one who actually evaluated the data submitted by Jo Min at Seoul National University or Busan National University. The Catholic University Medical School's response to the questions of the judiciary is the degree of opinion that can be used to determine whether the actions of Professor Chung Kyung-Shim, who submitted materials containing "exaggerated expressions" or "false facts," are cheating. It can be regarded as only. What is important is whether students selection representatives of Seoul National University and Pusan ​​National University who evaluated the qualities of Jo Min actually saw the materials reflecting the contents of the experience activity confirmation, and that they could see that they had “misunderstood, misunderstood, and site”. Is it possible to judge that you have done something that is highly regarded as "false action or disposition?"

To this end, the court requested witness attendance from related professors to hear the stories of the people who were in charge of the entrance examination at the Graduate School of Medicine at Pusan ​​National University when Jo Min applied. Two professors who had been requested to attend attended a move from Busan to Seoul where a trial was held, but they submitted a written statement stating that they might be infected with Corona19, but the court said that the two must be in court. The judiciary said, "If the absence is repeated, the warrant can be enforced (forced)." It is unclear whether the witness will be held on May 21 and 28, the date held by the judge, but the witness will likely proceed as late as the will of the judge is firm.

Of course, the testimonies of the professors are not the only basis for judging whether Mr. Cho's experience confirmation is a trick. Even if the professors testify that the contents of the experience activity certificate had little effect on the evaluation of Mr. Jo Min, the documents submitted to the school during the entrance examination are stated in the recruitment guidelines so that only the truth is included, so the contents of the documents include false information. If present, the judges who believed this to be true would judge that it was common sense to misjudge it, and the judge may reject the testimony of the professors and stipulate that submitting an activity confirmation certificate is a hierarchical measure. Conversely, even if the professors testify that they made a wrong judgment because of the contents of the experience activity confirmation, if the judge judges that the degree of exaggerated expression included in the experience activity confirmation is not serious enough to cause misunderstanding or misunderstanding, there is also a possibility of convicting the charge. There is. Ultimately, judgment is at the discretion of the judge. Those who assert that they can easily predict the outcome by looking at the trial process are more of a scammer.
For the 'goddess of justice' that must

be covered by the ears, several issues related to the trial of Professor Kyung-Shim Chung, whether it is possible to deceive high-school students' entrance exam documents that contain exaggerated expressions or false facts, have been analyzed so far. And only a few of the issues. Prosecutors and defendants have already raised several issues, and more are expected to be controversial. As a result, there are so many people who try to take advantage of the fact that it is difficult to easily convey complicated issues and facts, distort facts in any way, and draw attention with unreasonable words. In the future, I am going to write a report file to calmly settle the issues related to this trial, where there are too many false claims and false analysis.

The 'goddess of justice', which symbolizes the law, is often described as blindfolded. Given the fact that the slogans "I love you, Kyung-shim" and "Penalize your heart" resonate around the court, I think that the 'goddess of justice' of this era should be closed. We will do our best to convey the best in the midst of too loud noise.