The accused (Yun Jung-cheon) graduated from high school in the countryside and began his social life after completing his service in the Marine Corps.
The original residence was renovated and sold into villas, and other projects were carried out.
We believe that if we cross the barriers to entry of development projects such as licenses and permits, we can gain enormous profits depending on the scale of construction, and we dream of wealth beyond those barriers.
(...)
However, the defendant believes that victory in the competition can be gained through connections, friendships, and pressures with the licensee and licensee, and for that purpose, he is devoted to forming friendships with influential people and wealthy people, and entertaining them.
Decorate the Wonju villa with gorgeous facilities and nice landscaping, and invite people of your choice to hold a party according to your needs.
While playing golf in a foreign luxury car, whether the opponent is a man or a woman, sex is used as a means of entertaining to gain a secret acquaintance.
(...)
Money is everything, so the wounds of trying to get it are mine or someone else's.
Whether it is the hearts of women who traded sex for entertainment, the trust of someone who believed in their pretentiousness, or the money handed over by believing that light affection was great love, they are considered to be only transactions.
-Construction contractor Yoon Joong-cheon's first trial decision
Exploitation and use
The 33rd Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court, which sentenced the first trial ruling against the construction contractor Yoon Jung-cheon, a key figure in the'Kim Hak's Sexual Hospitality Case', begins with the reason for the sentence sentencing (Director Son Dong-hwan). A self-made businessman from the countryside, an inhuman person who dreamed of wealth beyond the barriers using his personal connections, but treated sex and humans as the target of'exploitation' because'money was all'. It is a cross-section of Mr. Yoon's humanity, drawn by the judiciary who reviewed the evidence and records from several investigations by investigative agencies, re-investigation of the past, and the trial process.
However, the judiciary judges that it is difficult to view what happened in the process of sexual entertainment that Yoon committed was'sex crimes'. Given the objective evidence, such as e-mails and transcripts secured during investigations and trials, and some of the women's statements that have changed, there are aspects that appear to have been ``utilized'' of Yun's wealth by women mobilized for sexual entertainment. The court sentenced Yoon's sexual crimes to be indemnified or dismissed for reasons such as the statute of limitations and the overdue of the complaint period. However, if we look closely at the logic of the judgment, it can be seen that the court judged that it was difficult to conclude that Yoon's'sexual entertainment' was'sexual assault' even assuming that the statute of limitations was alive. Most of the logic of the first trial was recognized as it was in the second and third trials, and the 6th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court, which was the second trial court, also revealed anguish (deputy judge Oh Seok-joon). During the sentencing process, the judge said, "I sympathize with the victim's very painful heartache," and that "the facts and legal judgments are bound to be limited to the offense for which the prosecution was filed."
In this way, the complex aspect of Hak Kim's sexual entertainment case, in which'exploitation' and'use' were mixed, seems to have been controversial even in the process of re-examination of Kim Hak's past history, which took place more than a year before the trial.
In the 1248-page report on the investigation result of alleged sexual entertainment of Kim Hak-e, the former vice-minister of Kim Hak-e, obtained by SBS, includes [1], which saw women as'prostitutes' and [2], which saw women as'victims of sex crimes'. It is written.
However, the two eyes, which reveal a sharp difference in perspective, are drawing only parallel lines in the report without finding a point of contact.
Judicious Adults vs. Destroyed Women
[1], which judged the acts of women A and B mobilized in Yoon Joong-cheon's sexual hospitality as'sexually entertaining' was prepared by an investigative team member, an incumbent prosecutor. On the other hand, [Draft 2], which judged what women suffered as'sexual assault damage', was prepared by a civilian commissioner who was a former lawyer. Those who were provided with the same investigation record concluded the opposite of'innocent' and'sexual violence'.
There is a fundamental difference in perspective on the women in this case in the conclusion of this exact opposite conclusion on the same issue. [1] presupposes women as'adults with judgment', while [2] presupposes'the weaker who has been gradually destroyed by Yoon Jung-cheon's violence'. This is similar to the difference in time between the first and second and third trial rulings of former Chungnam Governor Ahn Hee-jeong, who were charged with sexual violence against Kim Ji-eun. The first trial of Governor Ahn's first trial assumed Mr. Kim as a'adult who can make judgments' and sentenced Governor Ahn to innocence on the grounds of Mr. On the other hand, the second and third trial judges assumed that Mr. Kim was'a woman who could not properly protest because of power.' Based on this assumption, the second and third trial courts of Ahn Hee-jeong judged that the act of the Governor of Safety was a'sex crime', as there was actually an aspect of humanity crushed by the power behind the act that judged that the first trial was difficult to say that it belonged to the victims of sexual violence. In [2], which judged women appearing in the former Vice Minister Kim's case as'victims of sexual violence', the concepts of'victimity' and'sex sensibility' are used. These are the logics that appeared in the second and third trials of Governor Ahn. Let's take a closer look at the fundamental difference in perspective between [1] and [2] through the relevant sections of the report.
The above section is part of a report [1] that concluded that the woman A who appeared in this case was a'prostitution agent'.
[1], which presupposes women as'adults with judgment', judges that it is difficult to convince that women in this case did not inform or take problems for a long time even after being victims of sexual violence.
If it wasn't for the purpose of ``using'' their sex, women should have taken minimal follow-up after the traumatic sexual violence they alluded to.
[1] also judges that this case is not'sexual violence' but'sexually entertaining' based on the'external acts' that women constantly visited the Wonju villa in Yoon Jung-cheon and sometimes uploaded photos of the Wonju villa on social media. .
It is concluded that all women are adults with judgment, and based on their objective behavior, it is difficult to conclude that they are victims of sexual assault.
This view leads to the conclusion below that women are more like'innocent' perpetrators rather than victims.
On the other hand, [2] focuses on women who seem to have been sexually exploited and destroyed by Yoon Jung-cheon and other influential people.
In particular, it pays attention to the financial power exercised by Jung-cheon Yoon and social powers such as'masculine' and'personality'.
It is said that amid the violence that Jung-Chun Yoon continued to exert, women's normal judgment and humanity were destroyed, and they had no choice but to be put into a dominant-subordinate relationship.
This perspective is evident in the lower part of the report.
Based on this premise, [2] argues that, taking into account special circumstances, excessively strict standards should not be applied to prove the crime of'sexual violence' in this case.
For women who have been constantly tamed by the powers of Jung-Chun Yoon and Hak-Ei Kim, the degree of assault or intimidation necessary for the establishment of rape crimes must be interpreted more broadly.
[2] also argues that when the incident first occurred in 2013, the prosecution was too focused on impeaching women's statements.
It is a view that the prosecutor has excessively rejected the sexual crime damage statement, which may be somewhat inaccurate after a long time has passed.
Investigation process with only visual differences and no controversy
The prosecution official who was in charge of the investigation at the time revealed to the SBS reporters that the view of this [2] was an "unfair attack." The official said, "In the process of the investigation, we found objective evidence such as evidence that women received money in return for sexual relations, and transcripts that seemed to be empowering Kim Hak-ui, and asked based on this," he said. "According to the current law, this is a'sex crime'. It was something I couldn't do as a lawyer,” he explained. "Most of the team members were prosecutors who have worked in the criminal force field, but it is true that I felt deprivation and resentment, saying,'The good noble prosecutors like Kim Hak-e didn't work like that and received hospitality and victory," he said. It is said that he did not look at the case sent as a'sex crime' to look after former Vice Minister Kim. It is a similar judgment to [1], which judged women not as victims of sex crimes, but as prostitutes. (The report also points out that the prosecution did not actively direct the case sent by the police as a'sex crime' as a'bribery'. A review of this topic will be covered in the following report file.)
However, in the report of the investigation team, only the difference in time between [1] and [2] is listed, and the process of discussion on this is not recorded at all. Even if the survey participants do not reach a complete consensus, it would be in the form of a common-sense report to at least reach a conclusion after arranging the issues encountered and presenting mutual opinions. However, the [1] and [2], which account for half the volume of the report, are written in completely different configurations and written in parallel. There is no evidence of finding a point of contact between the two eyes or discussing the differences between them in the report. The report, which had drawn only parallel lines without controversy over hundreds of pages, suddenly turns to the conclusion, with recommendations for investigations against opposition officials.
Members who raised issues in the course of the investigation team, such as attorney Park Joon-young, pointed out that "in the'past history investigation' process, which included private members, we should have produced meanings beyond'legal punishment' by expanding these conflicting views through fierce debate." do.
Even though they could not agree on guilt, innocence or judgment as in the process of investigation or trial, experts with differences in perspective should have found social meanings or tasks through discussions and listed them in the report.
However, another investigator who raises questions about the past history investigation process argues that "there was no controversy of this kind in the process of completing the report."
It is argued that the prosecutor's former member almost took charge of writing the report, and only when the deadline for submitting the report was approaching, other investigators strongly expressed their opinions emphasizing'sex crimes'.
Attorney Park Joon-young points out that "the'future-oriented investigation of the past', which the investigation team aimed for, was not carried out due to the use of the investigation contents to suit their respective political purposes."
SBS asked other investigators several times to object to these claims, but did not respond.
Investigation Politicization...
'Investigation of past history that became a past history'
This point seems to be related to the situation in which the investigation team was facing at the time. In November 2018, the investigators who received the reassignment of Kim Hak's case did not make progress for four months and are under pressure to end the deadline around March 2019. According to the details of the KakaoTalk chat room, an investigation group at the time obtained by SBS, investigators who are on the verge of ending the deadline without clear results are struggling to extend the deadline. In this extension,'Kim Hak's public summons', which is not sufficiently coordinated, is sometimes discussed.
▶ After Kim Hak's emergency withdrawal, "You can't do it if you are disciplined" (related article)
Attorney Park Joon-young, who appeared in the middle of the investigation team in early March, said, "Inside information that only the investigators can know flows to the media in the form of'exclusive reporting'. Started coming out. Instead of an increasingly widespread investigation and debate based on the issue, the investigators are faced with a need to pay more attention to outside public opinion and political dynamics. It can be said that the responsibility for this lies not only with the investigators, but also with the high-ranking organization that should have coordinated the overall operation of the investigation team, the Ministry of Justice's Past History Committee.
Eventually, on March 18, 2019, President Moon Jae-in ordered a ``strict investigation'' into the case of Kim Hak, which had not yet been investigated. On that very day, the Ministry of Justice, which was negative about the extension of the investigation team's activities, decided to extend the period. However, the investigators who extended their lives in this way were increasingly forced to take public opinion and politics as their main driving force. Reports of'Gap-geun Yun-Yun Joong-cheon', which were the targets of the prosecution's investigation recently, and reports of'Behind Choi Soon-sil' in Kim Hak's appointment' came out at this time. In addition, outside the investigation team, the'Kim Hak's case' was frequently mentioned as the basis for the reform of the prosecution, including the establishment of an airlift. Rather than investigating the truth as it is, the activities of the investigative team were swept away to control the scope and intensity of judicial punishment by riding on public opinion and politics.
The reason why the tax was paid to various experts to investigate the facts of the past may have been in order to keep the objective and neutrality and to uncover the truth of the matter. However, as the operation of the investigation team was encroached on public opinion and politics, the investigation team left only a shabby documentary heritage that was difficult to publish even a white paper. Instead of pushing the process of debate and debate all the way to the end, the experts of the investigation team were captured by relief and passion. Today, two years later, the tragedy of our society, which is witnessing the'past history investigation team,' may have started here.