It was 10 years ago. On April 8, 2010, it was just one day before the death of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook in the bribery case (1st case). Prosecutors have seized a search for another crime of the former prime minister. At that time, the cynicism of the 'prosecution of the prosecution' broke out in the court reporter's office, and in the criticism of the separate investigation, the case of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook's violation of the Political Fund Act began (second case).

The story, full of stories, ended on August 20, 2015, five years later, when the Supreme Court pleaded guilty to acquiring over 900 million won in illegal political funds. That leaves more of a judicial meaning than the corruption of the power class.

But suddenly the former prime minister's trial was recalled. Through the Democratic Party. "The truth of a former prime minister's case has been revealed in 10 years," said Kim Tae-nyeon, a former prime minister. What the ruling party used as the basis for the life of a former prime minister is the 'memorandum' written by Han Shin-geon, former president of Han Man-ho. The intention is to use the former prime minister's disillusionment as evidence for fullness, but from the conclusion, the memorandum has already been submitted to the courts for judicial judgment. It also went through a very intense verification process.


● 'Memorandum' submitted in the name of 'Confessions'… Law,

prosecutors, and lawmakers all knew Han Myung-sook's prosecution was compressed to have received over 900 million won over three times from former President Man Man-ho.

① 2007. 3. 31. ~ 2007. 4. Early police: $ 50,000, cash 150 million won, check 100 million
② ② 2007. 4. 30. ~ 2007. 5. Early police: $ 174,000 , 130 million won in cash
③ August 29, 2007 ~ September 9, 2007: At 10,500 dollars, 200 million won

in cash Based on Mr. Han's statement, the prosecution was on July 21, 2010 Charged. Five months later, the first trial began on December 6, and in the second trial (December 20), Man-Ho Han reversed the statement. There was no fact that I had given money to one former prime minister, and it was the purpose of handing money to another person.

The court was sullen. Reporters, courts, and prosecutors were overturning unexpected statements. Prosecutors confiscated and searched Han's detention center on June 11, 2011, saying he would investigate the perjury of Han Man-ho, securing notes, letters, and a diary (the material the ruling party calls `` a memorandum '').

The prosecution's search for seizure was this. After the statement was overturned, Mr. Han testified in court, often taking notes. At the request of the prosecutor, the court also stopped it. Han's fellow inmates also testified in court that "I saw Han memorizing a memo after taking a note of what would be said." The 'memorandum' was obtained by the prosecution after searching for seizure to find evidence to prove this.

In the name of 'confession notes, a counselor's interview note', the prosecution submitted it to the court as evidence. An opinion statement with the intention of 'the evidence simulating the reversal of a statement' was also attached. This means that the court, prosecutors and lawyers of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook all knew the existence of the memorandum nine years ago and were also handled in trial.

● Blackmail broker threats?

The memorandum submitted as evidence of the first sentence of innocence "Han Man-ho's voluntary motive" was not an issue in the trial itself. To be precise, the memorandum itself did not have to be an issue. This is because Mr. Han said the contents of the memorandum directly in court.

Han Man-ho testified that "because of the fear of Nam Mo, whom he met during the prosecution investigation," the false statement that he delivered money to a former prime minister. Mr. Han referred to Mr. Nam as a 'legal broker' in the memorandum, but was used as the representative or reporter of creditor Han Shin-geon at the time of the trial.

Nam met Mr. Han Man-ho on April 2, 2010, before the prosecution of a former prime minister, at the prosecutor's office. Man-ho Han claimed that he had made a false statement in the threat of Mr. Nam's threat that he could be disadvantaged if he did not cooperate with the prosecution.

A witness testimony of Mr. Nam was made by Mr. Han's testimony. At that time, Nam's Witness Newspaper was difficult to open because he deliberately avoided contacting the prosecution. A newspaper was also held against Mr. Nam (the former prime minister's side). Also, Mr. Nam was found to have had a meeting saying, "If you cooperate with the prosecution investigation, you may have a profit, such as parole." It wasn't intimidation, it was reciprocal, and the courts acknowledged it.

This is because Mr. Nam, who came to court, admitted the remarks of the purpose of the meeting, but the weight of the remarks was not great. Nam's intention was that it was just a normal level of speech. Man-ho Han responded to the reunion (?) Of Mr. Nam, saying that "I'll take care of it and give him time to think." The reason that Mr. Han made the statement of donation of money and money at the prosecution was not by pressure or recitation, but by his own judgment.

Even the first trial sentenced to one innocence to a former prime minister, judged that Mr. Han Man-ho's statement of donation of money had a voluntary motive to revive the company in cooperation with the prosecution investigation. All of the judges (1st, 2nd and 3rd trials) acknowledged that the interview with Mr. Man was not the motive for Mr. Manho's false statement. The contents of the memorandum related to Mr. Nam also mean that the lawyers were disputed and legally judged.


● There are only five documents in 73 times, and the prosecution's coercion ... Han Man-ho “Free atmosphere… Sorry for

the prosecutor, ” the Democratic Party is raising new suspicion, saying, “Mr. Han Man- ho was called 73 times, and the prosecution left only five documents.” He doesn't know what happened in the 68th episode without a record. The prosecution's coercion and suspicion were raised, which has already been dealt with in trial.

Prosecutors began by summoning Mr. Manho Han to the Special Prosecutor's Office on April 1, 2010, the beginning of the investigation of former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook, 25 in April, 14 in May, 11 in June, and July 10 after the prosecution of the former prime minister. The first trial was held 73 times before the first trial of the first trial, including the 5th episode, the 5th in August, the 4th in October, and the 4th in November. It is true that only five documents were submitted to one of the prime minister's trials.

It is unknown what happened in the 68th investigation. As a former lawyer for the prime minister, I have no doubt. It is natural that suspicions were raised during this process that there was pressure and repression of the prosecution, which cannot be left in the records.

However, Han Man-ho himself denied this. Han testified in court overturning the statement. "With over 70 campaigns, it was very painful to keep hiding false statements. I'm more sorry for letting the prosecutors investigate in a free, unrepressed atmosphere."

The donor, stating the statement, refers to the prosecution's coercive investigation in the following order, which was an unexpected testimony. Mr. Han himself admitted that there was no coercion by the prosecution in court, and the prosecution did not know that the statement of giving money was false. There was no coercion of the prosecution, but Han testified during the trial.

"Every week you call me to train a statement for three or four hours ... I sit down with a white haired man and praise him for doing well, killing the atmosphere that I can't do it, and I felt disillusioned every time, but I endured it because I was thinking of overturning the statement inside." Is it a low-lying child?

Mr. Han, who insisted on the fact that he was a puppy following the guidance of the prosecution, appeared in the memorandum more plainly in court. The prosecution rebutted that the 73rd appearance was a legitimate procedure to confirm suspicion. In a situation where the defendant's position was not recognized due to the former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook's exercise of the right to deny the statement, Han Man-ho was called to check if a loophole in the prosecution investigation was pointed out through the media or new suspicions were raised. (* The prosecution also said that it had the purpose of conducting investigations against other persons on the list of bond collections other than a former prime minister.)

This is a type of investigation mainly used in special investigations. Usually, the prosecution only summons one or two big suspects, such as business owners and politicians, but donors and key actors are often called to form a bond to investigate the lack of investigation and the point of attack against the suspect. This is also a repeated method in the investigation of imprisonment after the launch of this regime. There may be some excuse to pretend that there is no record. That's why criticism of the opaque investigation of smuggling has been raised every time. With this point of view, the prosecution has given a realistic reason for 'investigative skills' to combat corruption, repeated in the case of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook.

The lawyer made this a strong problem. I remember that at that time, the prosecution and the lawyers went through the battle against the castle. The judiciary's conclusion was 'I can't see until the abuse of the prosecution authority'. The court said, "It was taken into account that it took nine months from the start of the investigation to the publication of a legal witness against Mr. Han Man-ho, and there was no coercion on the Han-man issue during the summons investigation."

It was a conclusion based on Mr. Han Man-ho's statement, and even the first sentence, who had convicted a former prime minister, made the same judgment and acknowledged the ability of evidence of the prosecution's document (a statement of donation of money) as proof of evidence. Regardless of whether a former prime minister was judged guilty or not, all prosecutors (1st, 2nd and 3rd trials) concluded that the investigation of the prosecution itself was a legal process.

● False statement afraid of additional charges of embezzlement?… In the

memorandum of "Han Man-ho's first donation of money," Mr. Han made a false statement in fear of the prosecution's further charges of embezzlement, but this was also filed in a trial 10 years ago.

It is true that the first trial, which condemned former prime minister Han Myung-sook, acknowledged the fear of further accusations of embezzlement as a motive for misrepresentation. However, instead of the pressure from the prosecution, he said, "If the prosecution does not give the desired answer, it seems that Mr. Han himself has the potential to be a problem by embezzlement." This is based on the court testimony of Mr. Han Man-ho, "If I couldn't reveal where the 900 million won was used, I would have been feared that I would be saved because I was embezzled or not."

Even the first trial made it clear that it was a voluntary statement by Mr. Han without trusting him. It is that the former prime minister first stated that he would be punished by Han alone because he would be converted into a crime of embezzlement rather than a political fund law case.

Despite the same conclusion that '1st, 2nd and 3rd trials' are voluntary statements, it is because the difference in the credibility of the statements (donation of money) was judged that the guilt (1st innocence / 2nd and 3rd guilt) was mixed. The 2nd and 3rd trials are voluntary statements, and there is no motive for false statements, and even other evidence shows that Mr. Han's gift-giving statement is considered true.

The appeals court (2nd trial) and the Supreme Court (3rd trial) were based on courtroom testimony, such as the delivery of money and money, and the legal testimony of Mr. Jung Mo, who provided the money. "I couldn't figure out the truth, and before Mr. Han announced the data (delivery details), the prosecution had no data to confirm the authenticity of Mr. Han's statement." The court judged that 'if Han had not stated first, the prosecution could not know the embezzlement or the violation of the Political Fund Act'.


● Mr. Han, who was named lobbyist instead of pro-Park Gye-gye ... The court said, "I can't believe Mr. Han's court statement."

'The claim that the prosecutors gave him 600,000 won and manipulated the prosecution to cover it and give it to former prime minister Han Myung-sook' also appears in the memorandum. This is new in the media, but it was included in the memorandum when it was brought to court.

Only Mr. Han and former lawyers of the prime minister did not issue this in court. Instead, Han Man-ho claimed to have delivered more than 500 million won to Kim and Park Mo in the lobby for ordering construction rather than pro-Park. (* At the time, in court, Han lent 300 million won to a former prime minister, 500 million won to Kim, etc., and 100 million won was spent by Mr. Han himself. The

prosecution believes that Mr. Han did not mention the pro-Park lawmaker who wrote in the memorandum because he had already insisted in court that he had handed over 500 million won to Mr. Kim and Park. In other words, the reliability of the memorandum was denied in court by Han Man-ho himself. And even the first court sentenced to innocence, as well as the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, did not believe Mr. Han Man-ho's claim (the 500 million won lobby fund claim).

The passport tries to give credibility to Mr. Han Man-ho's court statement based on the first sentence of innocence, and attempts to expand it to the reliability of the memorandum, but this is an illusion. Even the first trial did not give Mr. Han a great deal of credibility. It is true that the first trial condemned a former prime minister and found it difficult to believe Mr. Manho's prosecution's statement (donation of money), but did not exchange the reliability and equivalence of Mr. Han's court testimony.

In simple terms, I thought that the court's statement, as well as the court's statement, were less reliable. The trial court said: "Han Man-ho's prosecution and court statements may all contain some truth, some false, exaggeration, distortion, and error." In simple terms, you would not believe Mr. Han's court statement, but you did not believe in the prosecution's statement and you were convicted of a former prime minister.

● Evidence of Guilty that the Democratic Party Does Not Say The Democratic

Party is now trying to use the claim made by Han Man-ho in court in the name of a memorandum, but the Democratic Party has overlooked it. It was a tough trial at the time. It wasn't just because the court gave credibility to Mr. Man-Ho Han's prosecution statement (a gift giving statement) to a former prime minister. Other guilty evidences that the Democratic Party did not discuss were outlined in trials through prosecutors and lawyers' attorneys, and matched pieces of fact.

△ Financial transaction details of 100 million won in checks handed by Han Man-ho into the account of former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook △ Statement by Mr. Jung Mo of the finance manager who created illegal political funds under the direction of Han (* Jung was the only one in court. When preparing money to hand to a former prime minister, he stated that he was cautioned that 'every time you don't wear a silver bracelet' is △ number of bonds with the details of delivery of money, such as 'han', 'senator', 'member of law', etc. List and ledger △ Interview with former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook before starting the prosecution investigation. The fact that Ahn came to visit the hospital △ The fact that 200 million won was returned to Mr. Han Man-ho the next day.

In addition, evidence showed that there was enough acquaintance between former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook and Han Man-ho to make money transactions. △ The fact that the office was rented to a former prime minister at a price lower than the market price in 2004, six years before the prosecutor's investigation began. △ Mr. Han Man-ho and Han's father had dinner with a former prime minister and received a tie. The fact that he visited the prime minister's house and did the interior construction △ The fact that Mr. Han had a luncheon with representatives of large construction companies at the Prime Minister's mission at the invitation of the former prime minister. (Hanshin Kunyoung employees are also supported).

In addition, various workshops were conducted to find the truth in various ways. The controversy between the manager of the accounting department, which provided money to hand to Han Man-ho and a former prime minister, and the confrontation with Mr. Kim and Park, who were nominated as lobbyists (a workshop of over 500 million won), were held in court. In the newspapers watched by the court at the time, Han Man-ho often failed to refute the testimony of Mr. Jung, Kim, and Park, and did not make consistent claims, such as a change in the statement after the questionnaire. In addition, other bankers listed on the ledger, such as the list of bonds recovered by the court, which proved to be extraordinary and used as a strong evidence of a former prime minister's guilt, were also convicted of a substitute.

● Trial-orientedism with guaranteed defense rights… The Judicial Meaning of the

Han Myeong-sook Trial The first case (bribery case) and the second case (illegal political funding case) of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook have a unique judicial significance. The court implemented trial-centricism, which had been limited to declarative content, in reality, and the prosecution reduced the importance of maintaining the charges (as well as) the investigation, and achieved attorneys' defense and defense capabilities. This means that both the prosecution and the lawyers fought the best way they had on the stage of court.

In the actual trial (first and second trial), six lawyers, including former Attorney General Kang Keum-sil, as well as former Chairman Min Seung-baek of Baek Seung-heon, who are regarded as having outstanding defense skills, participated in the trial, and former Prime Minister Kim Neung-hwan joined the defense attorney. . They frequently attended courtroom courts of Han Man-ho and heard testimonies, and conducted various witness newspapers led by lawyers. This means that during the trial, the defense of former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook was sufficiently exercised. (* However, the prosecution has questioned how the trial proceeded)

● Problems of investigation by Myung-sook Han ...

No errors of power institutions, such as the courts and prosecution, are used to investigate the situation . The prosecution only prosecutes the facts of the crime, and the court only makes judgments about the innocence of the charges, so there is always a gap between legal and substantive truths. Occasionally, victims of unfair judicial death occur due to the irresponsibility of the authority. Reconsideration cases, represented by Yonggong manipulation, are just examples.

Can I see Han Myung-sook's trial as a companion to this case? It is clear that on the basis of at least the memorandum, it is not possible to see former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook as an innocent victim of justice. However, there is room for criticism in the motive for the prosecution's investigation. In the first day of the first case (Special Part 2 bribery case) with a deep defeat, the investigation of seizures and target investigations was inevitable while the second day (Special Part 1 political fund law case) was seized and searched the day before.

The intention to recover the collapsed pride of the special part 2 was also shown, and the impression that the pride of the prosecution was the first rather than the justification of corruption was inevitable. The prosecution said that the intelligence service was filed a long time ago and the investigation began. "Is it to recognize the corruption charges and cover it?" This is the same reason as the former regime investigation after the regime change, but the same logic worked when the Moon Jae-in government was launched.


● Democratic Party to talk to the airborne office ... The

prosecution was convicted of prosecuting a former prime minister when he was suspected of the purity of the investigation's motive. The judiciary acknowledged the legitimacy of the prosecution's investigation, as it was confirmed that there was no fact that they were forced to make statements or to force them. The memorandum was judged by six judges, including Mr. Manho's perjury, and only 25 judges (including the Supreme Court) were involved.

The fact that the memorandum cannot be the reason for a re-examination by a former prime minister probably knows the Democratic Party, which has been ruled by many lawyers. It is clear that it is not included in Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which lists the reasons for retrial. So, in the Democratic Party, the prosecution at the time was talking about the investigation by the airborne authorities, but this too is irrational.

According to the Democratic Party's claim, the charges applicable to prosecutors are abuse of authority, but the statute of limitations is seven years. The aging has already been completed. In particular, the Ministry of Airborne Affairs may face criticism as a crime by investigating the prosecution of a former prime minister and acknowledging the legality of the prosecution.

● The truth revealed in 10 years? What changed

in the past 10 years is what the Democratic Party , which became the ruling party, had in mind, and it seems to be a former prime minister's lottery. The ruling party criticizes the court prosecutors based on the memorandum and creates an atmosphere of amnesty by making a former prime minister a victim. If a group of businesswomen creates an atmosphere that "businesses faced difficulties and faced an economic crisis through prosecution and court convictions," it is similar to that the previous Blue House responded to special businessmen.

It is not possible to determine what the Democratic Party's flags are, but we should not overlook the tragedy of special pardons for the power class, such as corruption and economic crimes. (* The Blue House reinstated President-elect Kwang-jae Lee, and the position that the violation of the Political Fund Act is not a crime of corruption.) The fact that a special pardon to correct injustice only promoted the culture of 'voting innocence' and undermined the rule of law. Do not forget.

The Democratic Party says, "In 10 years, the truth of the former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook has been revealed." There is no new evidence. The only thing that has changed over the past decade is that the Democratic Party has become a ruling party in the opposition. The new evidence that can vary innocence does not include opposition parties.