The purpose of proving that Kim Moon-gi did not know when he was in the market
Prosecutors “Consider the application as a witness on our side”
Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung removes 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 transferred to trial for falsely declaring that he did not know the late Kim Mun-ki, head of the first development department of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, asked Kim Yong, a sub-division. president of the Institute for Democratic Research, was called as a witness.
In the second trial preparation hearing held on the 22nd in the hearing of the 34th section of the Criminal Agreement of the Seoul Central District Court (Judge Kang Gyu-tae), Representative Lee expressed his intention to apply as a witness of 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 prosecution witnesses.”
Rep. Lee has been accused of publishing false facts, such as saying, “I didn’t know when I served as Seongnam Mayor” in relation to former ruler Kim in December last year, when is the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. Prosecutors insist CEO Lee could not have known former Director Kim, whom he had known since his days as a lawyer. The indictment also pointed to the fact that CEO Lee played golf with former Director Kim and former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Headquarters Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu during a business trip to Australia in January 2015.
The prosecutors asked the court to secure three months worth of Mr. The judge said, “There were frequent phone calls at that time, so I wonder if I made a request with the intention that we could have had a conversation relating to the prosecution.” In response, the prosecution said, “After the indictment, it was said that the bereaved family and Mr A met and had a conversation. The bereaved family said it was accepted that Mr A (CEO Lee) was discussing it in the election camp, he said he would find out the situation before Mr A met the bereaved family and see if anyone ( among the people on the phone) belong to the camp.”
When the judge noted that ‘the prosecution must prove (in advance) whether the person on the phone belongs to the camp’, the prosecution said, “It is possible that key officials of the camp such as Jeong Jin- sing (Head of the Camp). The representative office of the Democratic Party) or Kim Yong (Vice President) may come out.” Then, “Isn’t the defendant also in profit if he doesn’t come (person Mr. A on the other end the call) out? There’s a reason to check,” he raised his voice.
Prosecutors also asked Lee to “clarify whether the purpose of acknowledging the facts set forth in the indictment itself is clear.” Representative Lee’s side objected, saying, “Since the facts of the prosecution have not been stated, 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 identified.
The prosecutors said, “The general purpose of the defendant’s comments can only be evaluated through social context, etc., and the defendant’s comments at that time were intended to avoid suspicions related to Daejang-dong by denying any relevance after the death of the former Director Kim.” 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 inspection of the Gyeonggi-do government by the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee of the National Assembly, CEO Lee said, “We can’t help it because the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has threatened to make it a problem . for dereliction of duty” regarding the suspicion of preferential treatment for the change of 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 Elections Act.
