last edited May 13, 2021
Professor Chung is the spouse of former Minister of Justice, Cho Guk. Cho Guk's wife was sentenced to 4 years in prison in December 2020, in large part, for allegedly forging a service award certificate for her daughter to fraudulently facilitate her entry into a university medical program. The former Justice Minister appointed by the democratic Moon Jae-in administration, was forced out of office by this indictment of his wife, and his own related indictment. He was accused of financial misconduct, destruction of evidence, abuse of his office, and other related charges. He had been in office for just over one month and was a major proponent of reforming the conduct of prosecution and judicial administration in South Korea, which is overtly politically driven. The relevant charges against Professor Chung discussed below pertain solely the charge(s) of forging a Dongyang University award certicate for her daughter, Cho Sim, to facilitate a corrupt or unfair admission process to univerity programs.
There are so many defects in the prosecution's case against Professor Chung, Cho Guk's wife, it's hard to keep track:
1. No chain of custody on the computer seized by police from the college lecturer's lounge at Dongyang University that allegedly produced the forged award certificate. The professor's computer was taken under prosecution control at the University lounge, moved to Professor Chung's assistant's office and "evaluated" without following proper legal and forensic procedures (no record of search, no authorized representative of defendant present, removing the entire computer on a pretextual basis, no return or detailed record of the data taken provided to defendant, all in violation of government investigative policy). The prosecution operated the computer in an irregular fashion for forensic evaluation, not using the safe mode. The prosecution inserted a USD drive with no witnesses present, and then claimed that the computer hard drive failed at that point. They did not provide the defendant's attorneys with access to the hard drive until the very end of the first trial.
2. Intentional concealment of exculpatory evidence. No record was kept of what prosecutors did to the computer. This includes evidence found on the computer by defense forensic experts that someone, while the prosecutors had the computer under their control, inserted a usb drive into the computer for a short period (one minute thirteen seconds) with no record of what the purpose was, what may have been taken from or introduced into the computer. The prosecution stated the USB introduced a search program to distinguish the evidence it sought on the hard drive. This was done outside the presence of an office aide of Professor Chung, who was asked to leave the room at the University. The prosecution then concealed those actions, the associated data, and attempted to cover up whatever they did from defendant, defendant's counsel and the court. In fact during the first trial, the state's forensic evidence was never entirely transmitted to the defense for examination. The history of IP addresses on the computer in question was falsified by the prosecution according to trial observers. Defense attorneys characterized the record as "contaminated" or "incomplete." They also argue such digital evidence should not be admissable. See alibi below.
3. Alibi/failure to prove elements of offense as alleged- In forensic evidence which the prosecution failed to disclose at the first trial, the evidence at the second trial proffered by defense forensic experts showed the computer from the instructor's lounge was connected to the internet in the Dongyang University area, during discrete periods from November 2012 to May 2013. The IP address record originally proferred by the prosecution showed the computer was in Bongbaedong in July 2012. It was again in Bongbaedong in August and September 2013, according to the state's case. In the first trial, on the second indictment, the prosecutors argued that the alleged forged certificate was produced in the Bongbaedong area, allegedly at the home of Professor Chung in June 2013. At the times of the alleged offenses (Sep 7, 2012, first indictment, not guilty, and June 16, 2013, second indictment, guilty) there are no IP address entries. After failures of proof in the courtroom, the prosecutor's requested a second indictment alleging the forged certificate for Cho Sim, originated with the later June 13, 2013, award document for her brother from the same university. At the first trial, there was no reliable indication of where the computer was at these times. Incomplete IP address entries due to prosecution alteration of the record allowed the state to argue the computer was in Bongbaedong. There is no presumption or inference available circumstantially because the integrity of the data has been tainted by prosecution mishandling, misrepresentation, and potential contamination or deletion.
Because of the haste in bringing a prosecution with no prior investigation, and the associated failure of the prosecution to allow access to the computer and the original digital data, the prosecution was free to manipulate the presentation of evidence at the first trial as it found its initial theory of the case had failed. The prosecution had seized the computer in September 2019 just a few days before, what it thought based upon its own allegations, was the expiration of the statute of limitations on the pertinent charge against Professor Chung with respect to her daughter's certificate. Yet, another pressing prosecution need was to drive Justice Minister Cho Guk out of office in attempt to block prosecutorial reform efforts by the incumbent administration. It's no surprise why exact copies of indictment documents and the chief judge's findings and orders are not published in the conservative South Korean press. Some expert observers questioned the lawfulness of allowing two trials of the same charge at the first trial. The judge ruled they weren't the same charge.
At the first trial, Professor Chung was found not guilty under the first indictment on the forgery charge. The court found her guilty under the second indictment, which the court ruled was a separate charge because "all the facts were different." In fact, it was a second bite at the same apple for the prosecution. Experts question the legality of the procedure. So, at least on the certificate forgery charge, the "second (appellate review) trial" is really a third trial of what is essentially the same accusation.
Initially, at the first trial, it was charged that the professor produced the forgery at the university, in Yeongju, in September 2012, with an unknown conspirator. The method of the crime was specified as arbitrary use of the presidential seal. The second indictment (12.17.19), allowed by the judge at the first trial, charged that the forgery was committed June 16, 2013, at the professor's home, in Seoul (the Bongbaedong IP address), that her co-conspirator was her daughter, and that the stamp of the former university president Choi was forged by scan reproduction. Late news on May 11, 2020, reported that the defense presented evidence, that Chung Kyung-sim, and the computer were at the Dongyang University in Yeongju at the time the prosecution alleges she produced a forgery in Seoul at Bongbae Dong. Computer files dated May 3, 20, and 27, showed class preparation on her computer for scheduled classes. At the time, she had a class schedule to meet weekly at the Dongyang campus. On August 22, 2013, a computer file, post office receipt, and a hand phone file, show Professor Chung posting registered mail near the university on August 22, 2013, when the prosecution's dubious forensic IP address record allegedly showed the computer was in Bangbae Dong according to the prosecution case. So during the blank period in IP address record, defense has raised the circumstantial implication that the professor was at the university, in Yeongju, and not in Seoul (Bangbae Dong) on the date of the alleged offense as alleged by the prosecution. Independent news commentators have reported that, thus far, the prosecution did not submit any direct or other new evidence to prove the computer was in Bongbaedong on the date alleged, June 16, 2013.
A prosecution demonstration on October 15, 2020, in the courtroom, to show how the "forged award certificate" could have been produced on Professor Chung's computer by someone with limited computer skills with just a little training failed according to the defense. Letter spacing, font size, image characteristics such as color and resolution were demonstrably different from the original. The copy produced in the courtroom by the prosecution in a 38 minute demonstration, was readily detectable as a forgery. The conservative press misrepresented the demonstration as a complete success showing that anyone could produce a forged award certificate on their computer. One of the defenses at the first trial was that the word processing program ( 아레한글 ) used to make the allegedly forged certificate was unknown to Chung who was not computer literate and only knew how to use microsoft word according to her office aid. There was no indication she had the expertise to correctly obtain, introduce, and produce, authentic looking forgeries from image files. The defense submitted several statements from technical experts at the second trial that there was no indication that Cho Min's award certificate was not authentic.
4. False reliance on the absence of regularly annotated business practice. The absence of a Dongyang Unviersity administratively assigned serial number on the actual award certificate in question is said to prove that the certificate is a forgery. Yet, a former professor from the college during the marterial period testified at trial that there was no regular business practice of assigning serial numbers to award certificates from the university and that other such certificates had been issued without direct participation of the president, and without serialized numbers from the main office, and were not fraudulent. Judge Im Jung-yeop, disallowed the testimony of this witness in the first trial and relied completely on testimony of former College President Choi Seong-hae for his finding of guilt. Choi claimed he had the exclusive power to stamp such awards. A member of his administrative office disputed this and said the power was delegated within the office and so called serial numbers were assigned by different activities. Ironically, Choi recently stated publicly, that unrecorded awards were not unusual, and that a similar problem existed at other colleges.
5. Best Evidence. The actual evidence of the alleged regular business practice of having the president's office stamp and serialize award certificates would be the award ledger itself allegedly maintained by the president's administrative office. The award ledger for the material period before, during, and after the date on the alleged forged award, relevant to the offense charged against Professor Chung doesn't exist. It was allegedly destroyed by that office. We know this because there is an audio record of Choi discussing the matter with his staff. So Choi is relying on his memory ostensibly of events that occured in 2012.
6. Prior inconsistent statements. On September 4, 2019, Choi was quoted in the press as saying the award ledger from his office still existed from 2012, and that Cho Guk's daughters name did not appear on it as someone doing volunteer work at the University's English Language Center. He also said that prosecutors had reviewed the awards records ledger from 2011 onward, an apparently false statement. Later it was reported that the award ledger record of awards was only maintained for five years and then destroyed according to University policy. This is disputed. Choi has made contradictory statements about how and when he became aware of the "forgery" both at trial and in public. He has made contradictory statements about when the policy of keeping the ledger changed, the time of destruction, who destroyed it, and how it was destroyed. The trial judge at the first trial disregarded the testimony of multiple eye witnessese that tended to support the authenticity of the certificate and relied essentially upon the "concrete and consistent testimony of former University President Choi."
7. Prosecution's chief witness under duress. The star witness against the professor in the case of the "forged award certificate" is Dangyong University's former President Choi, who allegedly mismanaged the college and placed it in financial difficulty. He had decided to open a satellite campus at a former US military facility in an attempt to expand the college. For this purpose he engaged his brother's construction company to work on the new facilities. Running short of funds he allegedly solicited faculty and staff at the college to individually contribute thousands of dollars in personal funds to the project. Reports allege he obtained many tens of thousands of dollars in this manner and transferred the funds to his brother's business. There are sources who knew Choi from the university who said he expressed concern to them about the future course the school should take on August 20, 2019. He said if he mistakenly took the side of Cho Guk, the Liberty Korea party could close the university's doors. Just before the charges were publicly disclosed against Cho Guk's wife in 2019, the college president met with representatives of the conservative opposition party, now the People's Power Party, where he allegedly discussed getting chaebol (private corporate) financial support for his failing college. In a meeting with those party members, the possibility of Choi becoming a candidate for the National Assembly himself afterwards as a proportional candidate was allegedly raised. Choi and the party representatives denied these accusations. (edit: on May 12, 2021, MBC news reported a conversation with Choi he in which admitted receiving such an offer from the Mirae Dong party but ultimately declined, and also that he had spoken with the current repesentative of the PPP before the indictment.)
Shortly thereafter, Choi was summoned by prosecutors for two interviews. Choi's nephew alleged on the record to reporters that Choi admitted he met with Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol on September 8, 2021. Choi denies this and claims he met for a meal, dinner, with an assistant chief prosecutor. One independent investigative journalism program appears to have the audio recording of the conversation where Choi makes the admission. It is important to note that because of his alleged mismanagement and self dealing in financial matters there, the prosecution had leverage over Choi. So President Choi made his accusations and Professor Chung was indicted. Defense counsel regard multiple aspects of Choi's testimony as "red faced perjury." Choi himself said to a reporter he is the type of person who can't tell a lie, without revealing himself by his expression. This admission is anything but disarming. One of his tactics is saying so many inconsistent and implausible things on the same subject, that one doesn't know where to begin. When asked what he discussed with prosecutors in one early September meeting, when he was questioned for hours until late at night, Choi claimed he discussed economic conditions in the US.
None of the foregoing is discussed in the dominant South Korean conservative mainstream media (Cho-Joong-Dong media cartels) which have, in essence, taken up the role as propagandists against the Moon Jae-in administration and are complicit in the framing of democratic or progressive politicians who have attempted to reform conservative abuses in prosecution offices and the judiciary. MBC and independent investigative journalists are the sources relied on, primarily 열린공감TV,* Balgan Ajae, and Hol Seu-yong's Sisa Sageon are youtube sources relied on.** South Korea's YTN news has reported on the case controversy but took an equivocal view of evidence coming out at the second trial on appeal.
*녹취공개 예고] 최성해 전 동양대 총장, 교수들에게 돈 걷어 검찰 처벌받을까 두려워 조국 딸 표창장 증거조작 협조 정황 드러났다! - 진중권도 뜯겼다! Premiered Apr 25, 2021; 열린공감TV; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKiR28ZgUDk ; This is a short video. This youtube channel has literally hours of programming on this subject. The interpretation of this video and others on this subject is my own.
**Also, see: News Freezone, "정경심 항소심서 드러난 검찰 증거 1호 PC, 허위·은폐로 얼룩져," 4.13.2021; 정현숙 기자; http://www.newsfreezone.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=310144
