Judge Cha Eun-kyung, who was designated as a witness for the trial on June 17th.

The next hearing for the defamation case filed by the Western District Court against lawyer Shin Pyung is approximately 20 days away. 

Regarding the recent withdrawal requests for witness testimony from both the prosecution and the accuser's side, lawyer Shin Pyung has strongly communicated to the court his intent to proceed with the examination of witness Cha Eun-kyung as scheduled. 

It has been confirmed that lawyer Shin submitted a "Defendant's Opinion on the Examination of Witness Cha Eun-kyung" to the Criminal Division 2 of the Gyeongju Branch of the Daegu District Court on the 21st, outlining these points. 

Protest Against Repeated Requests for "Witness Withdrawal" from Prosecution and Accuser's Representative

The court had previously designated Judge Cha Eun-kyung as a witness during the trial on March 11, 2026. However, the prosecution, despite initially submitting a request for her testimony, abruptly submitted a withdrawal request on March 17th. 

Subsequently, the accuser's representative (Law Firm Young) also supported this by submitting an opinion to the court on April 23rd, urging the withdrawal of the witness. 

In response, lawyer Shin stated, "The actions of the prosecution and the accuser's representative are gravely unjust." He argued that Cha Eun-kyung is not only a witness requested by the prosecution but also a crucial witness requested by the defense, and thus, her testimony must proceed regardless of the prosecution's withdrawal. 

"Crucial Witness Determining Sentencing and Potential Perjury Charge" Playing the Role of the Actual Accuser

In his opinion, lawyer Shin specified that Cha Eun-kyung is a party with a substantial interest in this case. 

Although the accusation was formally made through an unprecedented "institutional complaint," it is pointed out that Cha Eun-kyung has effectively acted as the accuser by explicitly stating her desire for the defendant's punishment in writing during the prosecution's investigation. 

The main reasons for the necessity of witness examination, as stated by lawyer Shin's side, are as follows: 

① Cha Eun-kyung's voluntary involvement in a heated dispute. 

② The legality of the complaint procedure, including the "institutional complaint." 

③ Whether she was aware of the defendant's two apologies on the day the article was posted. 

④ The grounds for the defendant's claim that the article was posted with knowledge of its falsity. 

⑤ Whether the large-scale complaints were carried out based on a list of defamatory posts provided by the police. 

Lawyer Shin emphasized, "These points will not only serve as grounds for sentencing by clarifying the true nature of the case, but they will also be decisive evidence in determining whether the elements of the crime are met." 

Furthermore, he cited the opinion of a former prosecutor general of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, adding that the content of this witness examination could conversely become clear evidence determining Cha Eun-kyung's potential perjury. 

"The Allegation of 'Mass Complaints Through Police Cooperation' Must Be Revealed for the Integrity of the Judiciary"

Regarding the accuser's claim that "the witness does not know the specific details of the case," lawyer Shin countered that this is contrary to the facts, given the contents of the complaint and the clear written statements made during the investigation. 

Specifically, lawyer Shin stated, "Whether Cha Eun-kyung, as reported by the media, carried out an unprecedented mass complaint with significant cooperation from the police must be revealed to maintain the integrity and impartiality of Korean justice, which is independent of power." He urged the court for a wise judgment, adding, "If the witness admits to this fact, even if the defendant's actions are found guilty, it will be a significant mitigating factor in sentencing." 

By Reporter Im Yo-hee