Last Tuesday (July 27), Democratic Party floor leader Yun Ho-jung criticized the prosecution.

This is in relation to the trial of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk on allegations of corruption in the children's entrance exam.

Everyone's remarks from the Democratic Party floor plan meeting that morning are transcribed as they are.


"The truth that was almost buried about Cho Min, the daughter of former Minister Cho Kuk, has finally been revealed. A high school classmate Jang Mo, who stated that he did not see Mr. Cho, said, "Jo Min is correct in the video. My sense of retaliation obscured the truth,” he said with courage. He also asked for forgiveness from the family of former Minister Cho. Prosecutors threatened perjury during the investigation process, and he did not forget to interview before witnesses. After he banned Jang's father, Professor Jang from leaving the country, the investigation was conducted 6 times, and his mother was also called to investigate the family 11 times. up.



family of family and Mr. Zhang's former Minister of his country to the end of the prosecution's optional cornering investigation, the two families have reached the point of collapse. dwaetgo gukron the division in front of hokey truth, reached the national conflict is also peak. a handful also The reality is that the person who divided the public opinion in order to maintain the power of the prosecution is not responsible, but instead comes forward as the leader of the opposition party, talking about national unity, talking about national unity.



The 'family hostage play of the prosecutor's script', which had a foreboding of success, ended early with a confession of conscience.

Prosecutors' perjury teachers and abuse of power have surfaced again.

Self-inflicted assault is not the only crime.

At this point, intimidation, extortion, and inducement by investigative agencies should also be added to the crimes under the Criminal Act.

How long will the people be divided and conflicted in front of the fabricated truth of the prosecution?

Should the struggle to uncover the truth be the responsibility of the people?

The Department of Justice must immediately launch an investigation.

Human rights defenders in the prosecution also need to investigate the truth.

I hope that the Airborne Service will also disclose the full details of the incident and begin an investigation into those involved.”


The compressed or omitted facts will be described later, and the summary of the remarks is as follows.

In the trial of former Minister Cho Kuk, the truth of the trial was revealed when Jo Min's high school classmate, Jang Mo, overturned his statement. the story of losing

As the prosecution's perjury and abuse of power are suspected, the Ministry of Justice also called for an investigation by the Ministry of Public Security and Public Security.

If so, is this statement of the floor leader Yoon really true?

Was it a reasonable question irrespective of the facts?


Issue 1: Has the 'truth that was almost buried' really been revealed?


The 'truth that was almost buried' mentioned by the floor leader Yoon refers to the testimony of Mr. Jang, who appeared in the first trial on the 23rd of last month to cover the charges of forgery of official documents of the former Minister of Public Interest and Human Rights (Seoul National University Public Interest and Human Rights Law Center internship confirmation). Jang is a high school classmate of Jo Min, the daughter of former Minister Cho, and the person stated in the internship confirmation that he performed an internship with Jo Min at the Seoul National University Law Center Public Interest and Human Rights Law Center in 2009. Earlier, in the trial of Professor Jeong Kyung-shim, the wife of former Minister Cho, (1) testified that "I never did an internship during that period (May 15, 2009)" and held an international conference on May 15, the last day of the internship Even at the seminar (2), they testified that "I don't remember seeing Jo-min." Based on this, the court of first instance, Professor Kyung-shim Jeong, found that the contents of the internship confirmation were false, saying, "I worked as a high school intern from May 1 to 15, 2009 for the international academic conference Death Penalty in Northeast Asia on May 15, 2009." judged



However, at the trial of former professor Cho Kuk on the 23rd, Jang overturned the testimony, saying that the person filmed in the video was "90% Jo Min is correct." The intention is that it appears that Min Joo actually attended the seminar at the international academic conference. Based on this, former Minister Cho's lawyers and some YouTubers claim that "a decisive testimony has come out", claiming that the first trial court's judgment that Jo Min's internship at Seoul National University's Public Interest and Human Rights Law Center was false and the prosecution's indictment was broken. 'The truth that was almost buried' that Minority Leader Yoon finally revealed appears to be based on this argument.


Even if you attend a seminar, it does not mean that you will be 'normally completing an intern'


However, the problem is that Mr. Jang's 'reversed testimony' is not a very decisive factor in the trial. Considering the context of the entire trial, even if the prosecution's claim that "Mr. Jo did not attend the seminar at the international academic conference" is broken, it means that it is difficult to see it as something that will have a huge impact on the outcome of the trial. The reason is simple. This is because the main issue in the trial itself is not "Did Jo Min attend the seminar?" but "Did Jo Min actually do an internship?"



In order to prove that Mr. Jo actually did an internship, the following two things need to be identified.



1) Whether to attend the seminar on May 15


2)

Whether or not

to engage in actual internships from May 1 to 14 (written in the internship confirmation letter



) Even if 1) proves to be true due to Jang’s reversal of testimony, if 2) is not proved, Jo Min The proposition that Mr.'s internship activity is true is not satisfied. However, Mr. Jang consistently maintains the testimony that he did not engage in internship activities from May 1st to 14th. The same is true of another friend, Park Mo, who is listed in the confirmation that he interned with Jang. There was also a statement that it was impossible to attend as the period was the exam period for the study abroad class at Hanyeong Foreign Language High School, where Min Jo and Mr. Jang attended. Former Minister Cho's lawyers claim that he performed the assignment given by the professor during the period, but there is no other evidence to prove his internship activities. Even if Jo Min actually attended the seminar, it means that it is still difficult to see that he has successfully completed the internship.



(Moreover, the court testimony of Mr. Jang, which the floor leader Yoon referred to as a 'confession of conscience', did not say, "It is certain that Mr. It corresponds to an opinion, but Jang kept the statement that 'I don't remember seeing Mr. Jo' that day.)




In the first place, the main issue in this trial was whether or not he was guilty of forgery of the official documents (certificate of internship at Seoul National University Public Interest and Human Rights Law Center) between former Minister Cho Kuk and Professor Jeong Kyung-shim.

It is true that Jo Min's participation in the seminar is a meaningful issue, but to be honest, it is more like a 'one of them'.

The judge will decide, but it means that it is not a fact that can overturn the flow of the trial at once, as some YouTubers claim.

Even if there was a 'family hostage play based on the prosecutor's script' as the floor leader Yoon claims, it is difficult to testify to 'early end' it.

This is also a part that can be easily understood by looking at the structure and contents of the entire trial.


Issue 2: Was there any pressure from the prosecution?

The party actually said "nothing"


The reversal of the above testimony became more controversial as allegations of 'pressure and conciliation by the prosecution' were raised.

It seems that the core of Yoon's remarks is actually in this passage.

"The prosecution threatened to punish perjury during the investigation process, and it is said that they did not forget to have a preliminary interview before the witnesses appeared. We investigated the family 11 times including



"The prosecution's perjury teachers and abuse of power have come to the surface again. Assault on your own is not the only crime.


- Remarks by floor leader Yun Ho-jung, July 27


However, on July 25, two days after the trial, Jang Mo, who was the party to the 'confession of conscience', posted the following on his Facebook page.

"Everyone, I earnestly ask you one thing. Please don't sell the prosecutors." He said, "I asked a lot of information for the investigation, but they were all kind and genuinely respectful of me. Intimidation and threats in the investigation of me. , there was no compulsion at all."


- Mr. Jang Mo's Facebook, July 25th


In response to the question of former professor Cho's lawyers asking if there was any pressure from the prosecution on the day of the trial, Jang nailed that there was no such pressure.

The party repeatedly said that "there was no pressure or conciliation", but it is a rather absurd situation in which a third party urges inspection and investigation, saying "there was threat and pressure."



It should be compared with other cases, but the seemingly high number of investigations and the '3 hours and 30 minutes gap' seem to raise suspicion.

However, as the controversy grew, the prosecution also clarified this part.

It is not that there is no record, it is stated that 'pre-interview' and 'lunch' were held in the confirmation of the investigation process. It's time to create a capture screen to include it."

"In response to the court's request to encourage the prosecution's application for witnesses to appear, we have instructed these two witnesses to appear in court by phone," he added.

In this part, there are multiple witnesses and there are records.


Even within the party, "Does the floor leader watch YouTube?"


The floor leader Yoon Ho-jung said, "In this case, Jang's father and mother, who are not the suspects, were also called to investigate the family 11 times, which is a fair criticism of the prosecution's investigation of dust-shaping. It is a representative example,” he explained.



However, there were voices of concern within the Democratic Party over the remarks made at the meeting. A first-time lawmaker who used to be a lawyer said, "I think I spoke without knowing the context." Another lawmaker guessed, "There were a lot of such claims on our YouTube channel, but I think they borrowed that logic."



In fact, it is not easy to grasp the facts of a complex trial that has been going on for a long time and to understand the context accurately. Unless you are a party or a member of the court. This is especially true in the case of the trial of former Minister Cho Kuk and his family. It is true that journalists are very difficult to know unless they are court reporters who have been covering the trial all the time. Media coverage is also limited. This is because there are practical limitations to include all the history, context, and context of each trial in an article every time there is a trial.



However, it is a different story if it is the remarks of the floor leader of the Republican Party, which can be said to be the 'number two' of the ruling party. Usually, the message of a party's morning meeting reflects the party's spirit, position, and direction. The floor leader's remarks are in line with the party's position. Even if we take into account that the party's remarks at the morning meeting after making a hundred concessions are closer to 'opinions' that contain political assertions and intentions rather than facts, it is necessary to base them on more accurate facts if we consider the weight and meaning of the remarks.



A bigger problem is the distrust of the law and the resulting damage to society as a whole. Let's assume that, despite the assertion that "the truth that was almost buried has been revealed", a ruling is made to the effect that Hana Jo-min's internship activities are false. Then, even if the court made a judgment based on objective facts, those who do not know the whole context or have only heard one side of the argument will naturally criticize the court. After the terms “judicial nongdan” and “pansae” are recalled and fussed, the intensity of distrust in the judicial system will gradually increase (in fact, it is already a very common scene). The judiciary is not completely flawless, and checks and criticisms are necessary, but it is never desirable in a country where the rule of law is ruled by vague distrust and accusations. When more people do not obey the trial or 'live without the law', the damage is bound to come back to the majority of ordinary citizens who live within the bounds of the law.



In fact, in the ongoing trial, the act of selecting only the part that is advantageous to one's side to play the press outside the court or press the other side, and then attack the court based on the logic accumulated so far if the desired judgment does not come out, has been rampant in recent years. there is a landscape

YouTubers make money that way, and propagandists gain popularity.

Let's say you're a lawyer and you're in a position to win the trial somehow.

However, the case of responsible politicians who lead state affairs should be different.

Our society revolves around three pillars: legislative, judicial, and administrative.

It is natural that if one axis is stale, the other axis will also be damaged.

This is not just a story from textbooks.

This is exactly what is happening in our society.


Prosecution reform should not be used as a political tool


Regardless of the political background, the criticism and pressure of the prosecution by the passport is not the only one in a day or two. It has been more than two years since the investigation of former Minister Cho Kuk began, and intense pressure on the prosecution and reform work was carried out. It is also true that some achievements have been achieved in that the powers of the prosecution have been greatly reduced.



However, there seems to be few people who evaluate the passport prosecution reform as a success. In a New Year's poll by the Hankyoreh newspaper earlier this year, 41.9% of all respondents said that "the purpose was right, but the procedure and method were unreasonable." 33.9% of the respondents answered that "the purpose, procedure, and method are all wrong." Only 17.2% of the respondents answered that "the purpose, procedure, and method were all correct." This means that many people agreed with the purpose of the prosecution reform (59.8%) but answered that there was a problem with the procedure and method (75.8%). This has nothing to do with the political instrumentation of prosecution reform. This is interpreted as meaning that there are more suspicions that the prosecution reform is being used as a political means than that it is really for the sake of the people and society.



In the remarks of the floor leader Yoon Seok-yeol, the former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, who has emerged as a powerful presidential candidate in the opposition, appears. "The reality is that the person who divided the public opinion in order to maintain the power of the prosecution, which is less than a handful, is not taking responsibility, but is speaking of national unity and acting as the leader of the opposition party." This is the part where you can guess the background of the entire speech.



It is common in politics to attack and criticize the most influential candidates in the opposing camp ahead of the presidential election. However, the claim needs to be well-founded and accurate. This is especially true when referring to the trial process in which the innocence is determined by covering the good or wrong with objective facts. It's not going to end with a 'or not'.