The purpose of proving that Kim Moon-gi did not know when he was in the market
Prosecutors “Considering the application as a witness on our side”
Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung takes off his mask before speaking at the Supreme Council meeting held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul on the 21st./Senior Reporter Park Min-gyu
In the last presidential election, Lee Jae-myeong, who was handed over to trial for falsely stating that he did not know the late Kim Mun-ki, the head of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation’s first development department, requested that Kim Yong, vice president of the Democratic Research Institute, be called as a witness.
At the second trial preparation hearing held on the 22nd at the hearing of the 34th division of the Criminal Agreement of the Seoul Central District Court (Judge Kang Gyu-tae), Representative Lee expressed his intention to apply as a witness the secretary who went on a business trip to Australia with Vice President Kim. It is interpreted as an attempt to prove that he did not know former Director Kim at the time of serving as mayor through Vice President Kim, who had been with CEO Lee for a long time. The prosecution said, “We will review whether to apply for Vice-Director Kim and others as witnesses for the prosecution.”
Representative Lee is accused of publishing false facts, such as saying, “I didn’t know when I was serving as Mayor of Seongnam” in relation to former manager Kim in December of last year, when he was a Democratic Party presidential candidate. Prosecutors insist that CEO Lee might not have known former Director Kim, whom he had known since his days as a lawyer. The indictment also pointed out the fact that CEO Lee played golf with former Director Kim and former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Headquarters Director Yoo Dong-gyu during a business trip to Australia in January 2015.
Prosecutors asked the court to secure three months’ worth of communication records of Mr. The judge said, “There were frequent phone calls at that time, so I wonder if I applied with the intention that we might have had a conversation related to the prosecution.” In response, the prosecution said, “After the indictment, it was reported that the bereaved family and Mr. A met and had a conversation. The bereaved family said that it was accepted that Mr. A (CEO Lee) discussed it at the election camp. He said that he would find out the situation before Mr. A met the bereaved family and see if anyone (among the people on the phone) was related to the camp.”
When the judge pointed out that ‘the prosecution must prove (in advance) whether the person on the phone is related to the camp’, the prosecution said, “It is possible that key camp officials such as Jeong Jin-sang (Chief of the Democratic Party’s representative office) or Kim Yong (Vice President) may come out.” Then, “Isn’t the defendant also in profit if (Mr. A’s person on the other end of the call) doesn’t come out? There is a reason to check,” he raised his voice.
Prosecutors also asked Lee to “clarify whether the purpose of acknowledging the facts stated in the indictment itself is clear.” Representative Lee’s side countered, saying, “Since the facts of the prosecution have not been specified, we cannot exercise the right to defend.” It is said that the right to defend cannot be exercised because the specific actions with former Director Kim have not been specified.
Prosecutors said, “The overall purpose of the defendant’s remarks cannot but be evaluated through social context, etc., and the defendant’s remarks at that time were intended to avoid suspicions related to Daejang-dong by denying any relevance following former Director Kim’s death.” Beyond the question of whether he knew or remembered, the accused accused him of denying the very act of an exchange relationship with former Director Kim during his tenure as Mayor of Seongnam.”
On October 20 last year, at the Gyeonggi-do government inspection by the National Assembly’s Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee, CEO Lee said, “I mightn’t help it because the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport threatened to make it an issue for dereliction of duty” regarding the suspicion of preferential treatment for changing the use of the site in Baekhyeon-dong. Prosecutors have also prosecuted this statement by applying the charge of publishing false information under the Public Official Election Act.