Choi Kang-wook, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was indicted on charges of writing a false internship certificate to the son of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk, lost his seat.
On the 18th, the Supreme Court’s plenary body (Chief Justice Oh Gyeong-mi) confirmed the original trial verdict that sentenced Rep. Choi, who was indicted on charges of obstruction of business, to eight months in prison and two years of probation.
In accordance with the provisions of the Public Official Election Act and the National Assembly Act, which stipulate that if a sentence higher than imprisonment is confirmed, the right to run for election is revoked until the sentence expires, Rep. Choi lost his seat as a member of the National Assembly.
In October 2017, while working as an attorney at the law firm Cheongmaek, Rep. Choi was indicted on charges of interfering with the admissions process of the graduate school to which Cho applied by issuing a false internship confirmation to former Minister Cho’s son, Cho Won. An issue throughout the trial was whether electronic information such as internship confirmation letters and text messages contained in three storage media, including a hard disk from former Minister Cho’s residential PC, could be admitted as
These storage media were hidden by private banker ( PB ) Kim Gyeong-rok at the request of former Minister Cho’s spouse, former Dongyang University professor Jeong Kyung-sim, and arbitrarily submitted to the prosecution.
According to precedent, the participation rights of confiscated persons must be guaranteed when searching for and extracting electronic information from storage media. Rep. Choi’s side argued that the evidence could not be admitted because the participation rights of former Minister Cho and his wife, who were ‘actual confiscated persons’, were not guaranteed.
However, following the first and second trials, the Supreme Court also consistently judged that there was no problem with the hard disk’s admissibility as evidence.
The Supreme Court said, “While encouraging the concealment of evidence, Jeong Kyung-shim and others can be seen as having effectively given up or transferred to Kim Kyeong-rok the right to control and manage the hard disk and manage and dispose of electronic information in this case,” and added, “They are actual confiscated persons whose right to participate should be guaranteed.” “It is difficult to say that this falls under the category of a person,” he said.
The Supreme Court paid attention to former Professor Jeong’s intention in giving the hard disk to Mr. Kim. As former Professor Jeong gave it to her with the purpose of severing the ‘outward connection’ between himself and the hard disk, it can be evaluated as expressing a clear intention to give up the right to control, manage, and dispose of the hard disk and hand it over to Mr. Kim.
Since Mr. Kim holds the right to manage and dispose of the hard disk, the purpose is that Mr. Kim is sufficient for the prosecution to guarantee the right to participate in the process of extracting and searching for electronic information.
The presiding judge, Justice Oh Gyeong-mi, and Justices Min Yu-sook and Lee Heung-gu left dissenting opinions.
The three Supreme Court Justices said, “If the evidence concealer (Mr. Kim) arbitrarily submits to the investigative agency an information storage medium owned and managed by the main criminal (former Professor Jeong), which was stored after being instructed to conceal evidence, the main criminal may search and copy the stored electronic information. ·If it is assessed that there is a real benefit to not infringing on personal confidentiality and freedom when printing, the right to participate should be guaranteed to the original offender as well.”
They pointed out that the so-called ‘participation rights legal principle’ has developed in the direction of protecting the actual parties whose fundamental rights are violated by seizure and search, beyond the formal confiscated persons, and so this purpose should be considered in this case as well.
In addition, since it cannot be concluded that former Professor Jeong, who requested to conceal evidence, has completely given up the right to manage and dispose of information simply because she handed over the storage medium, she left an opinion that her right to participate should be guaranteed.
The plenary body is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme소닉카지노 Court, and more than two-thirds of all Supreme Court justices participate in the hearing and ruling.
Normally, all 13 Supreme Court Justices, excluding the Director of the National Court Administration, participate, but in this case, Justice Kim Soo-su avoided the case and the 12 Supreme Court Justices ruled in a 9-3 vote.
Both Supreme Court Justice Kim and Rep. Choi have a history of working in the Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyun).
Rep. Choi argued in the appeal trial that the internship certificate was not false, but the Supreme Court did not accept it, saying, “There was no error in the original trial’s judgment that influenced the judgment by deviating from the limits of free trial or misunderstanding the relevant legal principles.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Choi met with reporters immediately after the appellate ruling was concluded at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, and said, “I respect the ruling, but I feel regretful.” He added, “I think I have done enough to refute the random hunting-style investigation, targeted investigation, and snatch indictment that political prosecutors have been carrying out. “There was no relevant judgment at all,” he said.
He said, “I hoped that there would be a progressive ruling on the abused search and seizure procedures and on guaranteeing the human rights of victims, but it turned out to be a vain hope.” He added, “As the times become more difficult, attempts by the regime or power to undermine even the remaining functions of the judiciary become more and more difficult.” “I’m worried it won’t stop,” he criticized.
Rep. Choi said, “I think this is the end of my journey in the 21st National Assembly,” and added, “I plan to return as a citizen and find out if there is anything I can do to realize values such as the development of democracy in the Republic of Korea, prosecution reform, judicial reform, and protection of people’s human rights.” “He added.
The Supreme Court usually hears and decides cases in a subcommittee composed of four justices, but cases in which there is no consensus, cases that have social significance or require a change in precedent are transferred to the en banc body through a meeting of Supreme Court justices.