Attorney Shin Pyung [Photo=Yonhap News]

It has been revealed that Attorney Shin Pyung (70), who was indicted on charges of defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act and sentenced to a suspended prison term in the first trial, had his application to reopen arguments denied the day before the sentencing.

Previously, on January 23 of last year, Attorney Shin posted an article on social media regarding Cha Eun-kyung, a presiding judge at the Seoul Western District Court who issued the warrant, based on information he had received.

However, as soon as he noticed comments from netizens pointing out that "the person who attended the impeachment protest may be someone else with the same name," he immediately deleted the post. He subsequently posted an apology stating, "If the claim is true, I apologize for my lack of discretion," and followed up with another apology immediately after the Supreme Court's National Court Administration released its official statement.

Despite this, the Seoul Western District Court filed a criminal complaint against Attorney Shin with the police and demanded strict punishment. The trial concluded on June 17, 2026, and the sentencing was scheduled for today, August 12.

In response, Attorney Shin’s side filed an application to reopen the arguments, citing the need to guarantee his right to defense and provide core evidence, but the court denied the application the day before the sentencing. Consequently, the first trial, held on the 12th, resulted in a suspended prison sentence.

According to an 'Application to Reopen Arguments' obtained by the <Korea-US Daily> on the 12th, it was confirmed that Attorney Shin’s side had been attempting to prove that he lacked "knowledge of the falsehood (intent)" by requesting the verification of video recordings from his police interrogation and the examination of witnesses, including the investigator and related parties, right up until the sentencing.

Refuting the 'Fan Club Connection' Speculation in Prosecution Reference Material

According to the application to reopen arguments submitted to the Criminal Division 2 of the Gyeongju Branch of the Daegu District Court (Case No. 2025 Godan 591), Attorney Shin directly refuted the content of the reference material submitted by the prosecution on June 19, 2026, after the conclusion of the trial.

The prosecution's reference material stated on page 3 that "it is highly likely that the accused posted the article in question based on posts and photos found in the 'Jung Sook-jin Fan Club'."

Regarding this, Attorney Shin stated, "I have no relation whatsoever to the Jung Sook-jin fan club, and as an elderly person, my digital literacy is significantly lower than that of the younger generation." He maintained that it is an excessive, speculative assumption to conclude that he is connected to the club when he has no points of contact with it.

He further explained the circumstances behind his post, saying, "At the time, there was such a flood of posts criticizing Judge Cha Eun-kyung for attending the impeachment protest that even a 'low-level internet user' like myself could clearly feel it." He added, "I wrote the post without even imagining that, given the context of the rare surname 'Cha (車)', it could be a person with the same name."

Raising Questions Regarding the Omission of 'Repeated Apologies'

Attorney Shin emphasized that as soon as he realized the possibility of a person with the same name through comments following his post, he uploaded apologies on two separate occasions.

However, he raised questions, noting that these apologies were never mentioned in the police or prosecution investigation documents, transfer reports, or the indictment, nor by the complainant.

Attorney Shin’s side argued, "Repeated apologies are a significant fact demonstrating that even if the expression was false, it does not meet the constituent elements of 'knowledge of falsehood,'" and took issue with the investigative agencies' consistent exclusion of this fact.

In particular, Attorney Shin’s side stated that the only interrogation record written by an investigative agency in this case was the "Suspect Interrogation Protocol" written by an investigator named Mr. Kim. They claimed that during the drafting of this protocol, Investigator Kim pressed the defendant aggressively to prove his "knowledge of the falsehood." The following is the position of Attorney Shin’s side:

"It spans from page 11 to page 16 of the suspect interrogation protocol, and it is even titled 'Knowledge of Falsehood.' The defendant strongly refuted this. The intense debate regarding this will be vividly revealed through the verification of a portion of the video recording tape, which was made upon the defendant's voluntary request."

Accordingly, Attorney Shin’s side "requested verification of a portion of the video recording tape covering pages 11 to 16 of the suspect interrogation protocol as the most important evidence to prove his claim of innocence due to 'lack of knowledge of the falsehood'."

In addition, Attorney Shin’s side requested the examination of Investigator Kim as a witness alongside the verification of the video recordings.

However, by denying even the application to reopen the arguments, the court—having already denied the request to call 9 witnesses to testify on the presence or absence of "knowledge of the falsehood" during the March 11, 2026, trial date—resulted in a situation where not a single witness was adopted. Attorney Shin’s side claims, "I was unable to sufficiently exercise my right to defense."

In closing, Attorney Shin reflected, "It was a court battle fought with my hands tied."

Reporter Lim Yo-hee