4:17 AM Investigation Team Statement Denouncing Strong Opposition; Yonhap News Follow-up Report Update:

On the 5th, the prosecution logo is reflected on an employee at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News.

The sentences for those involved in the Daejang-dong development corruption case, which shook South Korea, will not be higher than the first-instance rulings. This is because the prosecution has waived its right to appeal for the defendants who received prison sentences.

According to a Yonhap News report on the 8th, citing sources in the legal community, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office did not file an appeal against the first-instance judgments for private developers including Kim Man-bae, who were indicted on charges of breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

The deadline for the prosecution to file an appeal was midnight on the 7th.

In criminal cases, appeals must be filed within 7 days of the sentencing date if the verdict is contested. If the prosecution waives its appeal, the sentence cannot be increased from the first-instance ruling due to the principle of 'prohibition of disadvantageous modification' under the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, all five defendants, including Kim Man-bae, have appealed.

In the first instance, Kim Man-bae, the largest shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, was sentenced to 8 years in prison and a fine of 42.8 billion won. Yoo Dong-gyu, the former head, was sentenced to 8 years in prison, a fine of 400 million won, and a forfeiture of 810 million won.

Nam Wook, lawyer and owner of Cheonhwa Dongin No. 4, was sentenced to 4 years in prison, and Jeong Yeong-hak, accountant and owner of Cheonhwa Dongin No. 5, was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Lawyer Jeong Min-yong, who worked as the head of the Investment Business Team in the Construction Strategy Business Division, was sentenced by the court to 6 years in prison and a fine of 3.8 billion won, with a forfeiture of 3.722 billion won.

The court imposed heavier sentences on Yoo and Jeong, who were involved with the construction company, than those sought by the prosecution.

However, the court recognized only breach of trust under the Criminal Act, not breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes as charged by the prosecution, stating that the exact amount of damages could not be precisely calculated.

The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office did not issue a separate statement on this day.

It is unusual for the prosecution to waive an appeal in a major case that has drawn national attention, even when the imposed sentences fell short of their requested sentences.

According to a follow-up report by Yonhap News, the prosecution's initial stance was that an appeal was necessary. However, the Ministry of Justice was reportedly of the opinion that the sentences were already severe, exceeding half of the prosecution's requested sentences, and that there were no issues with the legal application.

It appears that after discussions that continued until the last moment, the decision was made not to appeal, in line with the Ministry of Justice's opinion.

In relation to this, an official from the Ministry of Justice stated, "The Ministry of Justice did not issue a directive to waive the appeal, but it did express the opinion, 'Is this correct?'" He added, "We must look at it from the public's perspective, moving away from a mindset of absolute faith in and supremacy of the prosecution."

An analysis suggests that the ruling party and the government's push to abolish the crime of breach of trust may have influenced the prosecution's decision to waive the appeal.

The Democratic Party of Korea and the government are pushing to abolish the crime of breach of trust, citing the reason of alleviating the management burden on companies.

The first-instance court for the Daejang-dong corruption case also stated at the time of sentencing, "Given that the complete abolition of the current breach of trust law is expected to have negative side effects, we have seen reports that alternative legislation for punishable areas is being pursued, and it will take considerable time." "It appears that discussions are underway for future application, and above all, as long as the breach of trust law exists, we have no choice but to detain the defendants."

Furthermore, Lee Jae-myung's recent criticism of the prosecution's indiscriminate appeal practices may have added to the pressure.

In September, Lee Jae-myung pointed out to Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon at a cabinet meeting, "Prosecutors are indicting things that are not crimes, or appealing/appealing even when acquitted, causing suffering to the public."

At the time, Minister Han replied, "We are trying to change the regulations institutionally," and since then, the Ministry of Justice has set a policy to refrain from habitual appeals and has waived appeals in cases such as state compensation lawsuits.

However, as this case is also related to Lee Jae-myung's Daejang-dong corruption trial, which is currently suspended, political repercussions are unavoidable.

Immediately, criticism was directed at the government and the prosecution from the opposition parties.

A representative from the People Power Party posted on social media, "If the prosecution's leadership obstructs or hinders a natural appeal, they will certainly be punished for abuse of power and dereliction of duty."

After the prosecution failed to file an appeal by midnight, he criticized, "At 0:00 on November 8th, the South Korean prosecution committed suicide."

The investigation team strongly protested, stating that they were unable to appeal due to unjust orders from above.

According to Yonhap News, the Daejang-dong investigation and trial team stated in a press release distributed on this day, "We determined that further judgment from a higher court was necessary on legal issues, some factual errors, and undue sentencing, and we completed the internal approval process, including reporting the intention to appeal to the Central District Prosecutors' Office and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office." "The process was completed without disagreement until the report to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office leadership on the 6th, and only the submission of the appeal document remained."

They continued, "Yesterday afternoon, long after all internal approval processes were completed, the leadership of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and the Central District Prosecutors' Office suddenly ordered the investigation and trial team to withhold the submission of the appeal document for unknown reasons." "We were told to wait without further instructions until the deadline for submitting the appeal was imminent, and then at the approach of midnight, they issued an unjust and unprecedented order to 'prohibit appeal,' preventing us from submitting the appeal document," they criticized.

Editorial Department