A former YouTube Minister Ji-Young Jin's famous YouTuber, Red Ah-jae, mentioned in my YouTube broadcast the previous interview file I wrote. I mentioned in the previous interview file that the facts of the remarks that I appeared on the TV show were wrong. (Ref: [Report File] Is it possible that 'trial-centered reporting' is possible in the solid logic of the faction?) Who is right for some readers who seem to mainly acquire the information of Professor Jung Kyung-Shim through the red broadcasting of YouTube? He also emailed me to explain.

First of all, I think that the people who sent you emails with Youtuber called Red Ahjae would have read and understood the full text of the coverage file mentioned on YouTube. If so, let's summarize the contents of the existing coverage file. The issue in the report file that was related to Mr. Red is whether the 'President's Seal File' was included on the subject that the Court of Justice Jeong Kyung-Shim's case demanded an appointment on May 7th.

● Does the “President's Seal File” not included in the trial seat?

He appeared on TV broadcasts and said that it was the 'citation file' that the court requested for the seat, and the seal file was not subject to the claim. It was also said that 'incorrect (report)' was reported for the purpose of including the seal file in the target. The purpose of the title is that it is only the citation file of Jo Min, the daughter of Professor Kyung-Shim Jeong.

When watching YouTube, Red Ahn mentioned on the basis of these remarks that he had a copy of the word, which he probably wrote down. When I compared it to other people's trial wording, etc., I said that it was true that the court said it was a 'citation file,' and that it was said to try to determine the accuracy of trial wording.

However, the previous interview file, which is expected to be well understood by those with ordinary literacy and reading comprehension, is not intended to determine who has the highest accuracy in trial wording. As summarized above, Professor Jeong Kyung-Shim's presidency includes a 'President's Seal File'.

If it was just to check the accuracy of the wording, the judges requested the court to find a file related to the citation that prosecutors estimate the process of counterfeiting on a computer in the instructor's lounge of the University of Tongyang. The seal file is also included, so there would be no need to write that there was a report that paid attention to the seal file. You shouldn't have to add to the interpretation of the court's request for assassination.

● Why did the judge mention 'the image file of the president's seal' in the lawyer's question?

Some readers emailed me about the reason that the Red Alumni said that the target for the title of the title is 'Commendation File', but also includes the 'President's Seal File'. However, the basis is written in the existing coverage file. On the 21st of the last month, the court spoke about the defendant's answer to the findings.

For the sake of confirming the accuracy of the remarks of the court, it is impossible to check if the trial is broadcast and cannot be returned. This is the part described. I didn't mention this part of the Red Bull's YouTube broadcast, but if you have only watched the YouTube broadcast without reading the full report file, you might have thought what the grounds are.

The remarks made by the court on May 21, which were briefly summarized in the existing report file, are likely to be longer. If you think that the wording is wrong or the purpose is wrong, please send it because the email address is written at the bottom of the report file. The content in parentheses is what I added.

○ Judge (Judge Jung-yeop Lim): Kwon Sung-soo (Judge of the case) will ask the lawyer.
○ Jung Sung-soo, Deputy Judge: The file that the forensic results were revised in June 2013 is now ... It seems that the lawyer's 'image of the director's seal image file' is insisting on this purpose (by looking at the opinion), 'It was transferred from a situation where I was not familiar with the process of copying what was on another business PC'. When it comes to the exact details, there's no (no explanation) who (stored) the computer, who backed it up, or whether it was a full backup of this computer file, or screened for use at home.
○ Attorney: I wrote that it was presumed that we didn't know it. Though it is the personal opinion of the lawyer, the prosecution keeps asking for death and talking about old memories of the past. But basically, if the prosecution prosecutes a criminal prosecution, the prosecution only needs to prove it.
○ Senior Judge Seongsoo Kwon: What is the defendant's position? If you don't remember, you can't. If you don't, you don't know. But because we are talking about the possibilities (the defendant's side), we weren't able to hear all of the possibilities, so we tried to listen to the defendant's memory. (The lawyer's image file is stored on the computer of the lecturer's lounge) No way or method (in the comments submitted by the attorney) is mentioned.
○ Attorney: Because the accused is unknown… .

The court reiterated the fact that it was not possible to explain why the 'President-signed image file' was on the computer in the instructor's lounge of the Dongyang University. In other words, on May 7, the court made it clear that the object of the judge's appointment includes the 'president's seal file'.

'Why did the previous coverage file be written on May 22, after the trial on May 21, if it was for the sake of the accuracy of wording, it could have been used immediately after May 12 when Red Actor appeared on TV.' If you think about it this way, you can understand what the grounds are.

● What is the 'citation file' is

not related to the issue, but let's assume that the 'citation file' (only) is correct for the judgment of the judge. But what is a 'citation file'? It could be defined as 'a file scanned by Mr. Jo Min's commendation normally issued' or 'a photo file taken by the commendation'. If you interpret the remarks of Red Jay's appearance on TV, you may be thinking this way. It seems that some of the YouTube broadcast viewers who sent the e-mail define this.

So, let's define 'citation file' like this, and let's say that only the citation file was judged. In this situation, I would have said this if I was Professor Chung Kyung-Shim's lawyer.

"I received a commendation saying that my daughter was lost through an employee of Dongyang University, but it seems that what I had scanned (or photographed) was stored on the computer to inform or convey the fact that the daughter was reissued."

Would it be a problem if I scanned or took pictures for the purpose of quickly notifying my daughter of the normally issued certificate? This is a simple explanation. However, according to the remarks of the court, Prof. Kyung-Shim Jeong, an attorney, gave something unclear in the process of backing up business data, presuming that the files were transferred to a computer in the instructor's lounge without knowing it.

There is a reason for that. Prof. Kyung-Shim Chung is constantly listening to the trial, and if you're a red-boy who understands the point correctly, it's something you know. The fact that the court has the original Jo Min-Chang's citation, and the citation photo file submitted to the prosecution during the investigation, the hash value including the date of creation is deleted, and the lawyer is asking why. If the citation file is defined as a 'scanned or issued photo of a normally issued citation', there is no reason for the judge to comment. And according to this definition, there would be no reason for the court to question the lawyer about the 'President's Seal Image File' quoted earlier. 'President-in-chief image file' is not subject to suicide.

● Once again, why did the story of 'President's Seal Image File' come out?

Then, let's define the term 'citation file' as a document created in the process of creating a citation by Mr. Jo Min, that is, a file created by filling in the contents of the citation rather than scanning the original. However, this will make the discussion of whether the court's wording was a 'citation file', a 'citation related file', and whether the title of the president is included in the title of the president.

Professor Jeong Kyung-Shim said that he had no involvement in the commendation process and the issuance process, and that the officially issued commendation was received through the staff. In that case, it is no surprise that there is a 'citation file (file filled in with the contents of the citation)' on the computer in the instructor's lounge. And even if you follow this definition, the reason why the court and lawyers had questions and answers about the 'President's Seal image file' at the May 21 trial is not explained. If you understand the progress of the trial and think logically for a moment, it will be understandable.

● What is needed for 'productive discussion'?

Based on this, I asked the red son and those who seemed to have access to information mainly through his YouTube broadcast. Do you still think that the presidency's statement on May 7 does not include the “President's Seal File”? If so, on May 21, why did the court and lawyer Jeong Kyung-Shim exchange questions and answers regarding the 'President's Seal Image File'? Why did Prof. Kyung-Shim Jeong's lawyers include the 'President's Seal Image File' that is not included in the title of the title? And what do you define as 'citation file'? The files seem to have been moved during the backup process, but why is the lawyer responding that it is unclear whose computer (hard) the file was moved from? And, whatever the definition of the citation file is, if the court demanded that only the 'citation file' be named, why did the answer to the 'President's Seal Image File' appear on the May 21st trial?

Existing coverage files have become a stumbling block to the recently emphasized trial-focused press because there has been exhaustive debate even in areas that do not need to be an issue. Would it be productive to say what the target of the death was like this and to say like this?

Prof. Kyung-Shim Chung and former Minister of the Republic of Korea have a lot to discuss beyond the facts. Who should consider the neglected computer in the common room, when is the evidence of illegal collection established, when is the evidence eradication teacher established on the one hand, and when should the private fund be managed? To what extent is the right to invest in investigative powers in the area of ​​admission and admission, what relationship should the president's personnel rights and prosecutors' exercise of prosecution have, and when is the appropriate time for prosecution investigations? We look forward to having productive discussions beyond exhaustive debates. Of course, the premise for this will be 'shared understanding' as mentioned in the previous coverage file.