"Lies are denied at first, then suspected, but over and over again everyone will believe."

These are words that are often talked about incitement and propaganda. These words, which were often summoned in the course of criticism of the forces trying to undermine the May 18th Gwangju Democratization Movement, have recently been talked about in the media sector, especially in relation to the trial of the family of the former Justice Minister of the Fatherland. People who have been critical of the former secretary of the country while watching the results of the prosecution investigation seem to be summoning these words to the other side, as well as those advocating for him and criticizing the prosecution and media reports.

There has been no response from the response to the report by the former Minister of the Korean Family. In recent years, critics have raised criticism that the existing media have been biased toward the prosecution's view and are not faithfully reporting the defendant's opposition. It seems to be due to a complaint that the statements, etc. that favor the defendant are not sufficiently known.


As a solution to the criticism of the prosecution investigation, the 'trial-oriented report' has been proposed. Even if you know a little late, let's report accurately, so the defendant who rarely enters the press during the investigation has no choice but to actively express his position during the trial, so it is intended to reflect the defendant's position sufficiently. Even in the media reports, the intention is to realize the 'weapons equality' of prosecutors and defendants. No matter how serious the crime, the defendant's right to defend must be guaranteed, so the good intention of the 'trial-oriented report' is correct.

The problem is reality. In the criminal courts where the workshop is conducted, it may happen that only one side's opinion is paid attention, or one side's remark is premised as a fact, or that the remark itself is misunderstood and criticizes the 'public hearing'. Extremes like this appear in the ready-made press as disgust and disobedience to the trial. A case in point is that former President Park Geun-hye's supporters still insist on 'tablet PC manipulation', criticizing the existing media, and not accepting court decisions.

● Is the workshop on the qualification of the first author of the thesis a press play?

It seems that this is also happening at the trial of the former family secretary. On the 12th, two lawyers appeared in a radio program specializing in current affairs and talked about the trial of Professor Kyung-Shim Chung, the wife of the former Minister of Justice of his homeland. In this process, an attorney says that Cho Min's daughter, Cho Min, is being discussed in court and the media issue of the first author of a pathology thesis in high school.

"The prosecution continues to ask questions related to thesis, but the thesis is in fact not listed in the public notice, especially the first author." (Attorney Ji-Hoon Park, YTN Radio <Lee Dong-hyeong's News Headquarters>, May 12) Even

though he is not in the indictment, he responds to the host's question as to why the prosecution continues to talk.

Lawyer Park Ji-hoon: "It's often seen as a story about the media rather than the technical aspects of litigation."
Moderator: "Can it be a major press play?"
Lawyer Ji-Hun Park: "The first thing that appeared (in the press) was the first author after the citation. The story fell into the public space, but the prosecution judged that it was advantageous to appear in the press."

When the facilitator confirms that the contents of the first author of the thesis are not included in the public notice, they respond.

Moderator: "I'll say it again, but it's not in the public space anyway."
Lawyer Park Ji-hoon: "Originally, this is something you shouldn't talk about."

If you listen to this, the prosecution is likely to bring out what is not in the indictment and play my press, and it is highly likely that the media are criticizing the family of the former secretary by hatching the prosecution. Some of the camp's biggest critics, the prosecution and the media, brought together allegations of 'sword-un adhesion', which may be felt as cider remarks. And people who have difficulty paying attention to the details, believe that remarks are true, and may have developed aversion to the established media.

● Why is the 'first author's issue of thesis' discussed in court,

but it is not true that 'the first author's content is not written in the public notice', which is the premise of the discussion.

In the indictment against Professor Kyung-Shim Jeong, who was prosecuted on November 11, last year, the first author's thesis appeared in the list of 'criminal process'. This is a section called 'False Intern of Dankook University Medical Science Research Institute and False Author of Dissertation'.

As in August 2009, when Prof. Young-Pyo Jang of Dankook University was asked to issue a confirmation letter of experience activities that Jo Min made in 2007 for the purpose of taking college entrance exams, as Cho Min became the first author of a medical thesis and made significant contributions to experimentation. A confirmation letter is issued stating the details of the activity and evaluation of the activity. At this time, the following is written on the confirmation issued.

"Activities: 1) Completed theoretical lectures on gene (DNA) structure and cloning process. 2) Completed theoretical lectures on genetic tests using enzyme polymerization reaction test. 3) Actually, enzymes using patient samples . the general reaction test exercises were performed 4) participated as a member of the Institute on "in the neonatal brain damage caused by domestic study on genetic polymorphism of the eNOS enzyme '

activity assessment: a certain amount of skill to 1) enzyme synthesis reaction test method 2) It was possible to derive the results from the experiment using the comprehensive enzyme reaction test. 3) During the training period, it was possible to actively participate as a member of the researcher in this experiment. "

● The twisted premise facts ... Is it possible that productive discussions are possible?

It is clear that the indictment contains the contents of the first author. Nevertheless, why did you tell me this? If you try to interpret the purpose of the actor's remarks, it is like this. 'The contents of the first author are written in the public notice, but they are not directly related to the allegations of Professor Kyung-Shim Chung.'

Prof. Kyung-Shim Chung is accused of interfering with his daughter Jo-Min, who has interfered with the admission to the Graduate School of National University. It was that the submission of a confirmation letter from Dankook University with false information was done to avoid the selection process for graduate students. However, 'thesis written as the first author' was not submitted at the time of admission. But why did the prosecution continue to mention the issue of qualifications as the first author of the thesis in the courtroom, and why did the media pay attention to it? This is because the qualification of the first author of the thesis is the relationship between the truth and inseparability of the contents of the experience activity confirmation document directly related to the allegation, and the two sides of the coin.

Jo Min's confirmation of experience at Dankook University's Medical Science Lab includes contents such as 'Participating in Researchers', 'Enzyme Polymerization Reaction Test', and 'Derivation of Results'. Even if you were a high school student, if you faithfully fulfilled the information written on the confirmation, you will have room to accept that you are the first author of the thesis. However, the question of whether the contents of the confirmation is true is in contact with the question, 'Are you qualified as the first author of the paper?' This is why the contents of the 'first author' that are not directly related to the allegations are continuously mentioned in the trial.

The performers who have experienced many trials as legal experts may not have known this. You may have omitted this background to keep things simple. However, as a result, the broadcast is only an error based on the wrong premise. As a result, the possibility of productive discussions has been reduced, and the hatred for many media outlets who have tried to do 'center trial' has only increased. I would rather be left with what it would have been like to say, 'The prosecution violated the Japanese law of public prosecution by putting the content in the public prosecutor's office that is not directly related to the allegations.'

● "'The seal file' was not a matter of judgment by the judges"?

In addition to the errors of this premise, there were also errors in interpretation and interpretations in the trial process. It is by one TV show performer and host. This is in relation to the part where the court requested 'Seokmyeong (explaining the facts by explaining the facts)' at the trial of Professor Kyung-Shim Chung on the 7th. The twist became true when the narrator even agreed with the talk of YouTuber who appeared as a performer.

At the time of the prosecution investigation, Prof. Kyung-Shim Chung, who claimed to have been issued by the daughter of Cho Min-dong, president of the Dongyang University under the mandate of the president, recently changed positions. The certificate of Tongyang University with the issue date of 'September 7, 2012' was delivered to the staff of Tongyang University in September 2012, and it was argued that Jo Min was reissued in June 2013 through the staff of Tongyang University because of the loss of the citation. Professor Chung's position is that he never remembered who the professor of Dongyang University was, and that he did not make any drafts during this process.

However, on September 10 of last year, the prosecution secured several citation-related files, such as the file, which was presumed to have been used to forge a citation on the computer of the instructor rest room of the Dongyang University, which was randomly submitted. Prosecutors claim that these files are clues to the process of forgery. Professor Chung also acknowledges that the computer was used by Professor Chung Kyung-Shim. If Professor Chung's daughter's commendation was normally issued through an employee, why are the files on Professor Chung's computer? Especially, the 'President's Seal File' is even more so.

In response, Professor Jung's court asked to explain why the files were on Professor Chung's computer. Since it is the 'president's seal file' that is directly related to Professor Chung's allegations, many media reported that 'the court has asked for clarification on why the seal file is stored on Professor Chung's computer.'

● How distortion is true

But the lawyer in the TV news program said:

"I listened to Youtuber waiting in the waiting room, but the judge in the court that day tried to explain it, not asking why there was a secretary's seal file, but there was another citation file in

it . So that's why there was a file. This is like a small difference, but the fact that there is a seal file and the citation photo itself is a completely different feeling, but until I came to this time today and met Youtuber, I just had a secret seal file. I heard it. " (Attorney Ji-

Yeol Yang, <Evening with Sang-wook Byun's News>, May 12) Youtuber, who appeared together on this, explains in detail.

"The court's request for seating was a citation by Jo Min. I asked for explanation why the citation file was on the computer, but the report is actually a separate file. The seal file is different. I thought I was doing it, so I said it in the rest room for a moment. " (Youtuber Red Jay, <Evening with Sang-wook Byun's News>, May 12)

However, this is not the case as we saw earlier. The casters are saying that the existing media are making false reports 'like the senses' even though there is a clear statement from the judges, but the fact is the opposite. However, the host says at the end. This appearance reported <"Only the prosecution's claim?" Controversial homeland trial report… It was distributed with the title, "The Out-of-Box Press".

"Anyway, I hope that you can read such content through an article, and I hope that the articles coming up will be well reported so that you can properly and comprehensively judge the defendants, prosecutors, and then lawyers." (Sang Wook Sang Anchor)

● Is 'trial-oriented reporting' an all-round solution? It

is difficult to confirm the authenticity of YouTuber's claim. The trial is held publicly, but it is impossible to record. Reporters listening to the trial are close to the level of transcripts, but they are not recording transcripts. In this situation, like a YouTuber who appeared on a broadcast, it is difficult to tell whether it is true or not if you say, "I went to trial, but that's not what I heard.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the YouTuber's claim was a request for the court's claim, and the prosecution and the accused were able to confirm what the 'question' was by answering the request. Yesterday, the court said that the defendant's answer to the findings did not faithfully state why the 'President's Seal File' was stored on a computer left in the instructor's lounge, and the lawyers again confirmed the facts. On the 7th, it was made clear that the title of the judge's seat was included in the 'President's Seal File'.

'Trial-oriented reporting' to prevent inaccurate reporting and to guarantee defendants' right to defend. I agree with that purpose. By the way, it seems as though the trial-oriented report is the all-round solution, but if you look at it before, it doesn't seem to be considered at all. When the entire trial process goes live, and there is a debate about whether or not to speak, there is a situation that can only be confirmed by looking back and seeing that this may not have been expected.

However, what was not supposed to happen is actually happening after the trial of the former family secretary. It may also be a testament to how ignorant the reality is that those who still present 'trial-oriented reporting' as the all-round solution. So what do you do? Personally, I don't have the answer. Maybe there is no answer in this reality. However, it seems to be the beginning of finding a solution to question whether the critics of the existing media reports are true, or whether they have misunderstood the factual relationship according to confirmatory bias. The difference between interpretations and opinions based on shared facts is a driving force for productive discussions, but discussions are impossible without shared facts.