Yoo Dong-gyu, who left the courtroom 30 minutes after the start of the Daejang-dong trial[법조 Zoom In/대장동 재판 따라잡기⑪]

“The trial began in earnest on January 10 in relation to the suspicion of lobbying and preferential treatment for the Daejang-dong development project in Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do. The Dong-A Ilbo’s legal team publishes a series of weekly trials on Saturdays in order to keep a record of this case of high public interest. At the same time, we plan to continue investigating the remaining allegations that have not been resolved.”

“If our defendant does not have a financial obligation (that he cannot leave the courtroom without the permission of the judge), I will leave the office.”

At the 17th trial on the suspicion of preferential treatment for the Daejang-dong development project, which was held at the hearing of the 22nd Criminal Settlement Section of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Judge Lee Jun-cheol) on the 25th, Yoo Dong-gyu, former acting president of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, said: When the judge answered, “I want you to take care of it,” former acting deputy Yoo left the courtroom.

At the trial, an investigation was conducted. Evidence investigation is carried out only when the court hears opinions on the evidence requested by the prosecution or the accused and makes a decision to accept it, considering that it has “capable of evidence”. However, as in this case, if there are multiple defendants, there may be cases where opinions differ on a single deed. In this case, if necessary, the court may decide to examine the evidence first only for the defendant who has consented.

On this day, only accountant Jeong Young-hak, the only accountant in the ‘Daejang-dong Five’, who acknowledged the allegations, gave an opinion that all agreed on the evidence, and the court decided to conduct an investigation on the evidence for the time being. In order for the trial to proceed efficiently, we will first review the documents presented in fragments during the witness interrogation process and increase our understanding of the case.

As soon as the trial began, the defense attorneys on the defendant’s side, except for Accountant Jeong, raised an objection, saying, “The prosecution is explaining the charges on the premise.” In particular, former acting deputy director Yoo strongly opposed the mention of former deputy director Yoo during the prosecution’s explanation of the documentary evidence. Yoo’s representative said, “It is unfair to impeach another defendant during the investigation of evidence by Accountant Jung.”

The court again explained the purpose of conducting the documentary investigation and asked for the understanding of the defendant, saying, “We will give you an opportunity to make a counter-statement later.” He also asked the prosecution to focus on the explanation of the objective meaning of the documents, and to refrain from raising objections to each explanation on the defendant’s side. However, Yoo’s representative left the office 30 minutes after the trial began, saying, “I understand that the trial procedure is separate.”

● Documents containing the contents of “Abandon the idea that a lot of profit is expected in Daejang-dong” were also released

The results of the private consortium scoring and the selection of preferred bidders contained in the ‘Preferred bidder selection result report’ document of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation in March 2015. Prosecutors announced on the 25th that lawyer Jeong Min-yong, who participated as an internal judge at the time, conducted a ‘biased examination’ in favor of the Seongnam garden consortium on the Hwacheon Daeyu side, and released the relative evaluation scorecard of Attorney Jung on the 25th.

On this day, the prosecution disclosed documents prepared by Seongnam City and the Corporation from the time when the Daejang-dong project was first reviewed in 2011 to the time when the Daejang-dong project started in earnest in 2015. Most of them were documents that were presented or mentioned several times in the process of witnessing the previous trial.

Among them were several documents approved by Lee Jae-myung, a standing adviser to the Democratic Party (then Seongnam Mayor). According to the prosecution, the document paid by the adviser in July 2011 contained the content that Seongnam City expected a profit of 320 billion won from the Daejang-dong project, and reviewed a plan to distribute the profits according to the proportion of the investment if the corporation receives a distribution.

When the business started in earnest in 2015, documents made around the time when major documents such as public offering guidelines, business agreements and shareholder agreements were prepared are also disclosed. In the document ‘The Mayor’s Instructions’ dated December 31, 2014, presented by the prosecution, Lee gave instructions to Yu Yu-ki, then head of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation’s development business division, etc. contained.

At that time, the development project team in charge of the public offering guidelines at the corporation had received the public offering guidelines from Attorney Min-Yong Jeong, who is affiliated with the Strategic Business Office, only a day before the announcement. claiming. In response, the prosecution said, “It is difficult to believe that the fact that the development business headquarters was not allowed to read (the public offering guidelines) on the pretext of maintaining security did not comply with the instructions.” He pointed out that lawyer Jung’s argument also contradicted the market’s instructions at the time. The prosecution believes that, basically, the reason why Attorney Jeong wrote the public offering guidelines without discussing it with the development project team was to increase the private sector’s share by reflecting the ‘7 major poisons clause’.

In the previous trial, there were several testimonies that Mr. Joo, the head of the development project team, who received the guidelines for public offering at the time, raised an objection to the effect that “there is a need for a grounding clause for the recovery of excess profits” and then was severely reprimanded by former Deputy Director Yoo. times came out. At the trial, the document ‘Rebuttal from Parking Lot’ was released, in which Attorney Jung refuted Joo’s claim at the time. Lawyer Jeong wrote in this document, “The deputy chief says that he expects a lot of profit in Daejang-dong, but it is desirable to throw away this thought itself because it can become a problem in the post-audit.” At the time, the prosecution believes that the five people in Daejang-dong deliberately reduced the expected profit of the Daejang-dong project.

● Kim Man-bae’s side “Isn’t it a successful business if the media frame is removed?”

A part of the project plan submitted to Seongnam Urban Development Corporation by the Seongnam Garden Consortium on the side of Hwacheon Daeyu at the time of the Daejang-dong project public offering. Prosecutors revealed this at the trial on the 25th, saying that the part where the Seongnam garden consortium said, “I am confident of the success of the business,” contradicts the defendant’s claim that “the Daejang-dong project was a risky business.”

At the 16th trial held on the 21st, a counter-interview was conducted against Lee, the head of Hana Bank. On this day, a lawyer for Kim Man-bae, a major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management (Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management), said, “The corporation made a fixed profit in the Daejang-dong project and secured a profit of more than 500 billion won. Can’t you see it as a business?” he asked. Mr. Lee said, “If you look only at the business, I think it was good, and from the perspective of financial institutions, it is an area that has been challenged in difficult times.” ” he said. He added, “At the time, it was unpredictable (returns) up to this level of the yen.”

In response, the prosecution pointed out that it is difficult to view the Seongnam Seopangyo Tunnel and infrastructure construction cost (about 70 billion won) as part of the profits of the defendant ‘over 500 billion won’, which is difficult to see as a simple ‘return for the public interest’. The prosecution asked, “If the tunnel construction is completed, the location (of the Daejang-dong project site) will eventually improve, so there is a possibility that the sale price will increase.” If the price of land rises due to the tunnel being drilled, the overall profit will increase, and the share of the private sector will also increase. Mr. Lee said, “I fully agree.” “At the time, I decided that even if the (private) business cost increased, it would have a positive effect on actual profits.”

On this day, Lee also testified that when he and Hwacheon Daewoo were preparing to form a consortium for the Daejang-dong project in early 2015, “Accountant Jeong Young-hak led the preparation of the business plan, and Lee Seong-moon, former CEO of Hwacheon Daeyu, did a lot of the work.” He also said, “Given the atmosphere at the time, former CEO Lee and Accountant Jeong treated Mr. Kim with respect.”

At the next trial to be held on the 1st of next month, former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation president Hwang Moo-seong will appear as a witness. When Hwang resigned as president of the corporation in February 2015, former head of development Yuhan-ki Yuan, arguing that he pressured the resignation by referring to former deputy assistant manager Yoo and ‘superior lines’, released a transcript of the report in October last year.

By Kim Tae-seong, staff reporter kts5710@donga.com

• like imagelike
• sad imagesI’m so sad
• angry imagesare you mad
• I want a sequel imageI want a sequel

Article Featured ImageArticle recommendation

shared imageshare

Copyright ⓒ Dong-A Ilbo & donga.com