The case of Democratic Party lawmaker Choi Kang-wook ( pictured ), who was sentenced to loss of his seat as a lawmaker in the first and second trial for writing a false intern confirmation letter to Jo Won, the son of former Justice Minister Cho Kook스포츠토토, was referred to the Supreme Court . It has been about a year since the case was filed with the Supreme Court. The issue of the appeal trial is whether the PC

of former Minister Cho and his wife’s home submitted by Mr. Kyung-Rok Kim, former Dongyang University professor and asset manager Jeong Kyung-Shim, will be recognized as evidence. The related issue is also linked to the allegations of corruption in the entrance examination of former Minister Cho. If the Supreme Court considers PC hard disks as evidence of illegal collection and does not recognize the admissibility of evidence according to the principle of ‘venom and poison’, it may affect the second trial of former Minister Cho. According to the legal community on the 14th, the first division of the Supreme Court (presiding judge Oh Kyung-mi) referred the case of Congressman Choi, who was charged with interfering with the graduate school entrance examination for which Mr. Cho applied, to the enclave by issuing a false intern confirmation. Usually, if the opinions of the four Supreme Court justices in the subdivision do not agree, it is put on a panel of 13 Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court did not disclose the timing of the referral. Rep. Choi is accused of issuing a fake internship confirmation to Mr. Cho in October 2017, when he was working as a lawyer at the law firm Cheongmaek. He was indicted in January 2020, and he was sentenced to 8 months in prison and 2 years probation after pleading guilty to both the first and second trials. Rep. Choi appealed to the Supreme Court in June last year.

The issue in the appeal trial is whether the hard disk that Mr. Kim concealed at Mr. Jeong’s request and then voluntarily submitted to the prosecution is evidence of illegal collection. Depending on the Supreme Court’s decision, it is decided whether the electronic information in the disk can be used as evidence of guilt. The disk contained documents related to Cho’s entrance exam. Rep. Choi’s side is arguing that “the actual confiscated persons, Mr. Jeong and former Minister Cho, were not guaranteed their right to participate.”

In both the second trial of Congressman Choi and the first trial of former Minister Cho, it was judged that it was difficult to see Mr. Jeong as an actual confiscated prisoner. Rep. Choi’s second trial court said, “The fact that Mr. Jeong gave the storage medium to Mr. Kim with the intention of destroying the evidence should be seen as giving him the right to dispose of it.” Former Minister Cho’s first trial also acknowledged the admissibility of evidence, saying, “Mr. Jeong voluntarily transferred management rights, and Mr. Kim voluntarily gave up the right to participate.” Regarding the ‘ PC in the Dongyang University instructor’s lounge’,

which was a similar issue earlier, the ruling that “the admissibility of evidence is recognized” was confirmed in the appeals court of Mr. Jeong. At the time, the Supreme Court believed that it was difficult to see Mr. Jeong as an actual confiscated prisoner for reasons such as the fact that the PC was left in a public space for a long time. A lawyer who used to be a chief judge said, “It seems that the judgment may change depending on the facts whether it is simply entrusted with storage or the complete transfer of the right to dispose.”