Justice Minister Jung Supports Prosecution's Appeal Waiver

Minister of Justice Comments on Prosecution’s Decision to Abandon Appeal

Minister of Justice Jung Sung-ho addressed the prosecution's decision to abandon the appeal in the Daejang-dong development corruption scandal, emphasizing that the court's sentencing was sufficient. He stated, “We judged that since a sentence higher than the prosecution’s request was handed down, there was no problem with not appealing.” He added, “When the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office reported that an appeal was necessary, I said, ‘It would be better to judge carefully.’”

The minister made these remarks during a press conference at the Government Complex Gwacheon. He explained that the key defendant, former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation head Yoo Dong-gyu, had been sentenced to eight years in prison, despite the prosecution requesting seven years. He continued, “For the remaining defendants as well, sentences exceeding more than half of the prosecution’s requests were handed down.”

Minister Jung further elaborated on his thought process when he received the first-instance ruling. “When I received the report of the first-instance ruling result on the 31st of last month, I couldn’t pay much attention due to the National Assembly schedule. I thought, ‘A considerably heavy sentence was handed down.’” He added, “When I received the second report from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office stating that an appeal was necessary, since the former head Yoo had received a sentence higher than the prosecution’s request, I viewed the first-instance ruling as having no legal issues and said, ‘It would be better to judge carefully.’”

He also mentioned that even when the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office insisted on appealing on the 7th, the deadline for appeals, he advised, “Judge comprehensively.” When asked if he had conveyed his opinion to Acting Prosecutor General No Man-seok at the time, he replied, “Since taking office as minister, I have not had a direct conversation with Acting Prosecutor General No.” He added, “I discussed it with the Ministry of Justice vice minister and bureau and division chiefs when they came to report to the National Assembly at the time.”

Criticism of Former Leader Han Dong-hoon’s Remarks

Minister Jung criticized the remarks of former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon, who had previously served as Minister of Justice. Han had posted on his Facebook on the 8th, stating, “At 0:00 on November 8th, the Republic of Korea prosecution committed suicide,” following the prosecution’s failure to submit an appeal by the deadline.

Regarding this, Minister Jung said, “The past Ministry of Justice essentially continued to give specific directives on prosecution cases.” He added, “Han claims the prosecution committed suicide, but as a former Minister of Justice with a prosecution background, I find it hard to accept that such a statement could be made.”

Reflections on Personal Legal Case

Minister Jung also shared insights from his own experience. He mentioned, “In the disciplinary case involving former President Yoon Suk-yeol, I won at the first instance. However, immediately after taking office as minister, I changed my legal representative and effectively played ‘bed soccer’ during the appeal trial. As a result, I received criticism from the trial judge, who asked, ‘Why didn’t you even apply for witnesses?’ and ultimately lost the case, also abandoning the final appeal.”

Call for Examination of Investigation Process

Minister Jung urged frontline prosecutors to reflect on the investigation process. He questioned, “Regarding Yoo Dong-gyu, although the prosecution initially requested seven years in prison, the sentence increased to eight years. Isn’t it possible to suspect that the prosecution gave Yoo a sentence heavier than what was originally promised?”

He continued, “From the perspectives of justice and equity, and examining the issues in the investigation process, is there any reason to appeal this ruling?” He added, “Last Friday, Nam Uk revealed in court that there were illegal investigations and attempts to coerce witnesses during the probe. If there were threats to the extent of ‘slicing open the belly,’ who would cooperate with the investigation?”