“When I pressed three or four cell phone passwords, the defendant suddenly struck me, saying,'You shouldn't do this.' (* Omitted) Since I am a legal person, I did not intend to physically resist the execution of an illegal warrant. I didn't even dream that it would be misleading."

(Prosecutor Dong-hoon Han, who was present as a witness on the 21st, is speaking in court)


Attorney Han Dong-hoon stood in the courtroom.

As a victim of an assault, not a prosecutor, I was on trial for the first time in 10 months after the incident.

Prosecutor Han attended the fifth trial date in the case of self-assault by Gwangju District Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong held at the 523 court of Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 21st.

A prosecutor, a victim and complainant, stands as a witness to testify of the situation at the time.



Prosecutor Han entered the court at 1:44 pm, a little after Deputy Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong, the perpetrator and accused.

On July 29 of last year, when the incident took place, Deputy Prosecutor Chung, who exercised force against a prosecutor at the Legal Affairs and Training Institute, watched a prosecutor who faced him sign documents for the witness newspaper after 10 months.

Reporters also spotted the two people whose eyes met each other, bowing their heads slightly to greet each other.

Afterwards, around 1:58, the court called a prosecutor as'witness Han Dong-hoon', and one prosecutor moved to the witness stand.

That's how the trial on this day, which received the most attention since the trial began, began.


Han Dong-hoon, who stood in court as a victim and witness...

Take meticulous notes and testify positively


The specific situation at the time of the ‘Swordsman of the First Time in History’ was outlined to some extent in the last four trials. The testimony of the two witnesses who attended the second trial in March was the beginning. At that time, both prosecutors who participated in the seizure and search of one prosecutor along with Deputy Prosecutor Chung at the time testified in the court that'there was no action to suspect destruction of evidence during the actions of one prosecutor. The same was true for the fourth trial held in April. The mother-in-law prosecutor, who was the only prosecutor who participated in the seizure search besides the General Prosecutor Chung, asked, ``Is there any suspicious part that is difficult to see as the normal behavior of using a mobile phone to make a call?'' 'I replied. Whereas Deputy Prosecutor Chung repeatedly claimed that the reason for his use of force was'an act because he was concerned about destroying the evidence', other people at the scene gave the same testimony that he did not see the act of trying to destroy the evidence.



One prosecutor testified at the time more specifically than the witnesses' statements. A prosecutor, who was allowed to ask the judge,'Would it be possible to take note of the questionnaire?' Most of the prosecution's and lawyers' newspapers responded positively. First of all, the memory of one victim about the situation when Deputy Prosecutor Chung, the perpetrator, approached him was this For readability, the titles and titles in the parts of the dialogue are omitted.


Prosecutor: "Did the defendant at the time (when the assault took place) suddenly approached the witness while saying'You shouldn't do this' on the couch?"


Han Dong-hoon: "Yes, I came across the hook in a very, very short time."



Prosecutor: "Is the word'you shouldn't do this' right?"


Han Dong-hoon: "I remember that."



Prosecutor: "Isn't the defendant approaching the witness and saying,'You shouldn't do this,' after looking at the screen of the phone that the witness is entering?"


Han Dong-hoon: "I can't do that at all. I'm holding (holding a cell phone) like this, but I can't see it from there."

Han Dong-hun "Correspondence damage to the SIM chip by manipulating the cell phone button? It is impossible in common sense"


One testified that at the time, from the position where he was standing, he was unable to see what he was typing on his mobile phone.

It was a composition that he couldn't see even if he tried to look at the screen of his cell phone because he was across from him.

Prosecutor Han testified that when he pressed three to four of his passwords to unlock a cell phone of roughly 20 digits to make a call to his attorney, Deputy Prosecutor Chung came over.



Immediately after the incident, Deputy Prosecutor Chung said in a statement sent to reporters,'I got up from the seat to check the behavior of a prosecutor entering something and turned around the table and stood on the right side of the prosecutor Han Dong-hoon. He said,'I was left with one place', which is a completely different testimony.


Prosecutor: "What was the situation just before (Director Jung Jung) approached?"


Han Dong-hoon: "I dialed a few numbers and there was nothing like the previous situation. (To unlock the phone to make a call) Don't you press the password? It was a screaming hook, so there wasn't anything that could be called an intermediate step."


Deputy Prosecutor Chung has argued that, in trials several times earlier,'it was trying to restrain the evidence because the circumstances of the destruction of evidence were seen.'

In this regard, the prosecution asked one of the prosecutors,'Have you ever done anything that is difficult to see in the usual way to make a call?'

Did the prosecutor do anything that would make him suspicious of the destruction of the evidence?

In response, one of the prosecutors replied:


Han Dong-hoon: "It's a common sense, but there's no way to unlock the lock to make a phone call? It's natural to open it with a password. The SIM chip that comes out of a mobile phone isn't a storage device, it's a cell phone's key. Common sense knows that there is no way to manipulate and damage the SIM chip. I didn't think it would be misleading for me to press the password to open the phone."


Attorney Han also stressed that he was not in a position to destroy the evidence.

'At the time, there were 5 to 6 members of the investigation team, and despite the prosecution's investigation and deliberation committee recommending against him without prosecution, the investigative team was in a situation where he was willing to do anything. 'Said one attorney.


Jeong Jin-woong's "password by hand? Didn't you unlock your face ID?"

Deputy Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong's lawyer also proceeded with a witness interrogation procedure for a prosecutor. First, after asking a few questions about the situation at the time, I played a video of the situation right after the crash, and the attorney was particularly focused on questioning how a prosecutor's office unlocked a cell phone. If a prosecutor used the'Face ID' method of recognizing faces on a mobile phone camera when unlocking, it was to argue that pressing the password by hand may destroy evidence, saying that the lock is unlocked at the time of seizure and search. I saw it.


Attorney: "After turning on the power of the newly purchased mobile phone and using it, when the screen locks, you set it to unlock with Face ID, right?"


Han Dong-hoon: "There are times when the prosecution (I answered in) faces (with an ID) and sometimes with a password (with an unlock method)." (* Omitted)



Attorney: "After July 21, 2020, when and for what reason did you set the screen unlock method to exclude Face ID from the unlock method using Face ID?"


Han Dong-hoon: "I told you that I change it often. Depending on the situation, if I wear a mask, I use a password (release method), and if I am alone at home or go to the office, I change the face ID (by way). It is not difficult, so I change it often." (* Omitted)



Attorney: "On the day of the incident, the mother-in-law prosecutor said,'I will check whether the mobile phone unlocking method is a password or a face ID.' Did you insist?"


Han Dong-hoon: "Yes, it's true." (* Omitted)



Attorney: "With the mobile phone screen verified by the witness, you don't know whether the screen lock is canceled with a password or with a face ID."


Han Dong-hoon: "That's by canceling the password."


In addition, the attorney continued to ask a number of times about a prosecutor who entered the password without canceling the mobile phone using his Facebook ID at the time.

One of the prosecutors asked,'Have you ever turned your phone off and on on the day of the seizure and search?' and raised the question that the screen of a cell phone at the time was different from the normal lock state.

However, one prosecutor repeatedly insisted that'there was a method of unlocking with a password rather than a face ID', and the subject ended after showing a pattern running parallel.


The names of the three people Han Dong-hoon brought out of the court...

Jeong Jin-woong, Lee Seong-yoon, and Chu Mi-ae

This trial received great attention as a prosecutor was scheduled to attend. Rather than how the arguments of the two sides collided, attention was focused on what a prosecutor would say about the internal and external circumstances surrounding this trial. In the so-called ``Channel A attempted attempted investigation'' that led to a seizure and search for a prosecutor, there were suspicions that former Channel A reporter Dong-jae Lee tried to find information on corruption such as the president of the Roh Moo Hyun Group by forcing Lee Chul, the former CEO of Value Invest Korea, into custody. It was an incident that occurred during the loss, and in the process, in the course of a suspicion that a prosecutor had colluded with a former reporter, Deputy Prosecutor Chung, who was then the first Detective Department of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office, inflicted force against a prosecutor in the process of seizure and search. So from the moment a prosecutor entered the court, the reporters' eyes and ears had been focused on his mouth.



One of the prosecutors also faced this situation head-on. Among them, Jinwoong Jeong, Seongyoon Lee, and Miae Chu were mentioned by name, emphasizing that the series of processes surrounding this investigation were unfair. First, when the Central District Prosecutor's Office released a picture of Deputy Prosecutor Chung's hospitalization, one of the prosecutors said:


Han Dong-hoon: "In the media pool of the Central District Prosecutors' Office (*a term referring to the distribution of press releases by each agency), I heard that'the chief prosecutor in charge (Jin-woong Jeong) was hospitalized for the physical act of the confiscated person (Dong-hoon Han)'. It was absurd... (* Omitted) This is the first time in a few decades that I have been physically armed after graduating.. I was in shock both physically and mentally while being broadcast nationwide. During the course of going to the hospital, I vomited several times and the doctor said, ' It would be better to be hospitalized.' But, as I said before, I was also a prosecutor, and deputy prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong was also a prosecutor, but with the (Jung Jin-woong's hospitalization) photo released, (I) even hospitalized, I thought that the prosecution organization would be ridiculous. "


At the time, prosecutor Han issued a statement stating that'there was a one-sided assault by the investigating team'. Based on the position of the investigation team, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office revealed that'A prosecutor physically interfered with the seizure and search process and Prosecutor Jeong was damaged'. At the same time, it was controversial by revealing a photo of Prosecutor Chung's hospitalization.

Afterwards, prosecutor Han submitted a petition to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office in relation to the assault case, referring to Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office Lee Seong-yoon and said:


Han Dong-hoon: "The jurisdiction may be the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and since then, as a pool of various letters, it was as if I had physically injured accused Jeong Jin-woong. Considering such a case, it is difficult to expect a fair investigation. I made a judgment, and I couldn't understand why the action that accused Jin-woong Jeong did to me was so I doubted that it was planned for the entire central district prosecution team, so I decided that it was not possible to sue the central district prosecutor or have an investigation there. Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon was the direct supervisor of the chief prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong at the time, so I decided that there was no fairness if I entrusted the investigation."


Finally, one prosecutor mentioned former Attorney General Choo Mi-ae.

He even made a statement to the effect that this case itself could be viewed as a'political investigation' planned by Minister Chu and others, and pointed at Minister Chu head-on.


Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon: "Minister Choo Mi-ae even stepped forward and invoked the second investigative command in this case, and afterwards, I was insultedly relegated to the Legal Affairs Training Institute without any evidence or vocation. Nevertheless, as if there is certain evidence for me, there is a definite answer from the National Assembly. It was a situation that came out. For me, I was suspicious of what kind of frame I was trying to manipulate the case, and it was difficult to think that if I didn't actively exercise defense, the truth could be revealed.”

"I have never whined about not giving out the password to the subject of investigation"...

Han Dong-hoon's assertion

After the remarks of a prosecutor came out, former Minister Choo Mi-ae posted a post on Facebook yesterday (22nd) to refute one of the prosecutor's claims. Minister Chu said,'The investigation approval and proceedings were made before the initiation of the commanding authority of the Minister.'The investigation approval and investigation of Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon was made by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Vice Presidents' Meeting and the Central District Prosecutor's Office based on independent judgment based on evidence and jurisprudence. It was done before the invocation.” He said that the time when he commanded the investigation was after the warrant for the seizure of cell phones against a prosecutor was executed, and the content was only to tell the prosecutor general at the time, Yoon Seok-yeol, to ensure the independence of the investigation team without interfering with the investigation.



Contrary to a brief comment by one prosecutor, Choo posted a long article on Facebook in just one day, with more than 2,000 characters, excluding spaces. In response, Prosecutor Han did not comment on additional comments from Minister Chu. However, he has delivered a position that contains a little more clarity of his position as revealed at the trial. Moves the position of a prosecutor.


"I have responded according to the law to the investigations, including two unreasonable seizure searches. Politicians, ministers, and investigation teams openly pressed for a year to renounce the constitutional defense rights to the subject for investigation because the results did not match their tastes. It's hard to understand, I've done a lot of investigations, but I've never whined about not giving a password to a person to be investigated, and I've never heard of it in any other investigation, because that's not true because the results aren't consistent with the taste of power. There are a lot of people who doubt the intention of



investigating an extraordinary

matter in the United States, and I think the same. In the face of

creating a human rights defense department, I would like to ask why the basic human rights principles and investigation principles guaranteed by the Constitution are so disregarded. If the prosecutor assaulted the former minister Choguk and Chu Mi-ae while seizing and searching for the prosecutor, would he not discipline him and promote the prosecutor?

The decision trial on the 28th...

The ending of the ending'Poisonous Assault Case'

It became clear once more that the trial was not just a case of assault, as the former Attorney General actively countered the words of the witnesses from the trial. A broadcaster intensively reported on the title of'The Prosecutor's Office', with the title of'Channel A Coercion Incident', but in the end, this incident got a completely different name, the'Channel A Coercion Incident'. This incident reflects the relationship between the media landscape of the current Korean society and the political world. It is a peculiar incident that floats on the surface of the complex variables surrounding the prosecution. In the meantime, the investigation team leader who was unable to identify as an'accomplice' after completing an investigation for four months and was unable to identify himself as an'accomplice' was even added to the strange situation in which he was handed over to trial for unprecedented assault on his own.



The first trial trial against Prosecutor Chung is scheduled to close on the 28th the following day. The judge said,'I will end the pleadings at 10 am on June 28th', and the eight-month trial process for the first trial seems to be overwhelming. In the resolution, the prosecution's sentence and the defendant's concluding statement are scheduled, and the prosecution has revealed that it is necessary to examine the defendant for the Deputy General Prosecutor's Office. Deputy Prosecutor Chung has said it will refuse to make a statement even if the prosecution's newspaper proceeds. However, as the court has approved the prosecution's request, there is a high possibility that a picture where the prosecution asks several questions and Deputy Prosecutor Jeong does not answer the question. We will continue to deliver the details of the next decision and the sentence of the sentence to be followed by the ‘first-ever self-righteous assault case’ that is heading toward the end.



▶ [Report File] The truth of the day of'Poisonous assault' by Jeong Jin-woong's Han Dong-hun ①: Witnesses


▶ [Report File] Jinwoong Jung's Truth about the Day of'Poisonous Assault' ②: Unfavorable testimony   

Keywords: