[News UP] Deutsche Motors is not guilty of '0 search and seizure'...What's the rest of the controversy?

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Jae-hee
■ Starring: Attorney Kim Sung-soo

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN News UP] when quoting.

[Anchor]
First Lady Kim Gun-hee's alleged involvement in stock price manipulation ended without charge, but the repercussions continue. In particular, the biggest controversy is the conclusion of the investigation without seizure and search.

Let's talk with lawyer Kim Sung-soo about the related content. Please come in.

The prosecution has been investigating allegations related to Kim Gun-hee for the past four and a half years, but they say they haven't even looked into Kim's mobile phone. And there is a controversy over false briefings, so why are there so many words after the investigation?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, there was a briefing on Deutsche Motors by Mrs. Kim Gun-hee. It was on October 17th. And since then, the issue has been raised as it has been mentioned in various places such as the parliamentary audit. First of all, this case itself was filed in April 2020, and isn't there a briefing on the results after 4 years and 6 months? However, the prosecution announced the results of this result without charge, and in this regard, isn't there a possibility of various questions about whether the investigation was conducted meticulously? But one of the questions that came out was, did you check your cell phone or account in detail? This can be an issue, but the prosecution has never been able to search and confiscate the contents of mobile phones, computers, and offices.

So why couldn't they search and seizure? The issue was whether or not they had secured it by conducting a search and seizure, but in the process of responding to the failure to search and seizure, the prosecution filed a claim with the court in this part, but it was rejected by the court. That's how I answered. At first, it was known that it must have been rejected and could not be confirmed, but when I saw the facts later revealed, the warrant was not claimed in relation to Deutsche Motors, but one of the other related cases was related to the sponsorship of Covana content. However, as we talked about the warrant requested in connection with the case, there was a story that this was a lie, and the prosecution said that it was a little mixed with that part, not a lie, and there are various controversies about this.

[Anchor]
So, I applied for the seizure of my cell phone in another case, but it was dismissed, and I mixed it as if it were a seizure attempt related to this case. And the key issue was whether Chairman Kwon Oh-soo knew about the market price manipulation crime in advance, but the prosecution said it could not find evidence. So, it's said that they haven't found any statements such as direct contact or collusion with other forces, so how should I look at this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
This case itself is about whether Deutsche Motors-related stocks were manipulated. Isn't the purpose of manipulating these stocks to eventually gain by manipulating stocks and eventually inflating their value? So this means that the act itself was considered to have taken place in the first, second, and second rounds from December 2009 to December 2012. However, in this regard, the suspects themselves, who made Deutsche Motors' main market manipulation, went on trial and were sentenced to appeal and second trial. Therefore, some people have been found guilty, and in the case of Kim Gun-hee, there is a form in which Kim Gun-hee buys and sells stocks in connection with Deutsche Motors' stock manipulation, so Kim Gun-hee participated in the stock manipulation.Or at least as an aid to Jeonju, it becomes like this. Then, in order for the assistance to be established, it should have been possible to know that this is manipulating stock prices. If I provide money even though I can know this, it can be aiding and abetting. Therefore, I confirmed the allegations, but unlike the main culprit who is now on trial, or other suspects and defendants, Mrs. Kim Gun-hee did not know about this. Because the prosecution did not find evidence that this was known, it was not guilty, so I saw it like this. So, as I said before, various issues arise about how far have we checked the evidence and things like this.

[Anchor]
And there's another point of contention, didn't Mrs. Kim Gun-hee receive the first and second written investigations? Contrary to the answer I made here, there was a part where I changed my statement in a face-to-face survey in July because I was mistaken. He said that he had made a direct transaction, but when he found out, he changed his words in a face-to-face investigation, but the prosecution believed this part as well, right?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the prosecution did not believe this part as it was, but through evidence or things that are contrary to it, if the suspect's statement is not true, it should be proved, but it has not been able to prove that part. And during the face-to-face survey at the time of the written survey and now, I answered like this at the time during the face-to-face survey, but this was due to an error. In reality, this is it, and if you said it like this, you can have doubts about it. And even though we could have investigated it, if there is no evidence in the course of the investigation, it is difficult to prove that there is a suspicion with it, so I think we would have stayed still on that part.

[Anchor]
The results of the investigation feel different from those of the presidential office, but in February last year, the presidential office directly mentioned Mr. Sohn in Jeonju as a similar case regarding Kim Gun-hee. But Mr. Son was convicted of aiding and abetting. And the prosecution judged Son as a professional investor, but this time, the prosecution believes that she has little knowledge about Kim Gun-hee. How should I understand the judgment of this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
The first trial was held in February last year to show what it was like to be at odds with the opinion of the presidential office you just mentioned. Isn't this the case where the trial is currently underway? Some Jeonju people are now up for the trial as defendants, but the first trial was sentenced at that time, and a person named Jeonju Son was acquitted at that time. Therefore, just as the presidential office was acquitted of the former presidents, if so, even if Kim Gun-hee is a former presidency, it will be important to recognize whether or not she is aware of this, but in that sense, there is a defendant who was acquitted, so even if he is prosecuted, he will be acquitted in the end.

But at the appeal trial, Mr. Son was convicted. Since he is currently convicted and sentenced to probation, if so, the prosecution should also be charged against Kim Gun-hee because there is a person who was convicted because the Jeonju mentioned the Jeonju about Son. Some people said that there is a slight discrepancy with the past remarks of the presidential office, and there was an answer to this at the time of the prosecution briefing.

The answer was that Son was a professional investor and invested a lot of money in this area, and it was revealed through text messages. That's why she was convicted, but in the case of Kim Gun-hee, the prosecution confirmed that there was a difference because she was acquitted because she was not a person with much knowledge of stocks, she was not a person with a history of market manipulation, and there were no text messages or statements made by these people in various circumstances. That's why various issues arise as to whether the difference can be actually seen.

[Anchor]
So, when the presidential office mentioned Mr. Son in Jeonju as a similar case, he was acquitted in the first trial, but as the judgment was changed to guilty at the appeal trial, a situation that was contrary to the presidential office's position has unfolded since then. If so, the case is now closed without charge, so can the investigation proceed again if new evidence comes out?

[Kim Sung-soo]
It's not like you're currently on trial and the ruling is acquitted, is it? I decided not to hold a trial because there seems to be no charges at the investigation stage. If so, the investigation can be conducted again if new evidence comes out under the investigation rules and the charges can be proved. Therefore, it can be said that this case is not completely extinguished, so it can be seen that there are still embers.

[Anchor]
Let's move on to the next case. We will also talk about the investigation of former President Moon Jae In's daughter, Moon Da-hye. Three police and prosecutors are currently investigating, right?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. You can see that there are three cases going on right now. First of all, the case being conducted by the Jeonju District Prosecutors' Office is about whether the ex-husband was illegally hired or preferential hired in connection with the Thai Starjet case, and I understand that he is being investigated as a reference in this regard. And there is another incident in Jeju. The case in Jeju is that there is a house owned by Moon Da-hye on Jeju Island right now. There is a house, and it seems that Moon Da-hye used it as a lodging business, and she used it as a way to gain benefits, but if you want to do this, you have to report the lodging business. However, if you say you didn't report it, there is a criminal punishment regulation, so we started an investigation to see if there were any charges in this regard. Isn't there a drunk driving case on the street in Itaewon-dong, Yongsan-gu, which has become a big issue recently? This is being carried out at Yongsan Police Station. So these three are the situations in which the case is now an issue.

[Anchor]
Then let's start with the most recent illegal lodging business in Jeju. After receiving the complaint, we asked the Jeju Self-Governing Police to investigate, so how is the current situation of the investigation?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Since it is still in the early stages of the investigation, it seems that it is not accurate to what extent the investigation has been conducted. However, there are now various areas where you can report to the lodging industry. Under the Public Health Management Act, you can report to the public health law business, and under the Rural Development Act, you have to report to the farming and fishing villages or the foreign tourist city residential business. However, based on the current article, it is confirmed that there is no such report. If so, even if it is right not to report, there is a review of whether the penal provisions under the Public Health Management Act can be applied to this. And if it doesn't report, it's highly likely that it hasn't even paid taxes. This is because in order to pay taxes, you have to report that you gained income for some reason, but it is not reported on this part. This is an issue. If there is such a part, it is also an issue because there is an obligation to pay taxes and penalties, and punishment can be considered under the Tax Offender Penalty Act.

[Anchor]
A little while ago, you mentioned the punishment that can be received for not following certain laws and regulations related to accommodation, but if you say you violated it now, what are the charges that can be applied now and how high are the penalties?

[Kim Sung-soo]
There are penalties under the Public Health Management Act if you don't report your accommodation business. According to this penalty regulation, imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to 20 million won is stipulated for accommodation businesses that do not report. So this part can be an issue.

[Anchor]
So criminal punishment is possible, right?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. And don't you also talk about the Tax Offender Penalty Act? The Tax Offender Penalty Act has penalties for both tax evasion and non-issuance of cash receipts. If you evade taxes, you have to report and pay taxes, but you didn't do this, right? In that case, if the amount does not exceed 300 million won, it stipulates imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to twice the amount of profit, and even if the tax invoice is not issued, it stipulates imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of twice the amount of tax, so this is also criminal punishment. Therefore, criminal punishment is possible, so the police are currently investigating it.

[Anchor]
If so, we will also look into the drunk driving case. It is said that a criminal agreement has been reached with the affected taxi, so how will it affect the future investigation?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the criminal agreement with the affected taxi is also important, but the fact that the injury occurred is the most important in this case. If there is no injury, even if there is a car crash, it is only punished by drunk driving under the Road Traffic Act. If so, it is punished according to the punishment regulations based on alcohol levels, and if there is room for an injury to be recognized, in that case, injuries under the Special Act on School Education or dangerous driving under the Special Act can be considered, and this is an issue because the sentence can be much worse. However, if an agreement has been reached and the injury certificate is not submitted, it is usually not considered that an injury has occurred, so if so, there could be a lot of differences in sentences, so it is expected that it will be punished only by drunk driving.

[Anchor]
Let's move on to the next case. Today is Police Day. I heard that there was a feeling of fading light due to a series of misconduct incidents by frontline police, but you touched the confiscated article?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. First of all, one was caught at the Gangnam Police Station. One case was caught, and the amount of money confiscated at the gambling center was defrauded for a considerable period of time. You can say that this confiscation was stolen. It was found that about 300 million won was stolen on charges of theft. Accordingly, he was arrested on the 17th. He's under investigation while in custody. So there was one such incident, and then there was another similar news right after that in Yongsan. In Yongsan, the police were found to have stolen the seized cash related to voice phishing, and the news is that the investigation is being carried out as an emergency arrest. Since there are many similar news, the police are currently saying they will conduct a full investigation to find out the situation of the seized goods. Therefore, if such a case occurs again, it seems to be an issue about how the police will respond to it and what kind of system will be created.

[Anchor]
Although there is a confiscated registration system, there are continuous criticisms that management and supervision are poor, so how should we take the direction of improvement in the future?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think there are various opinions, but I think there is a saying that we need to put a little more safety measures to check when this disappears by cross-checking. It is stored after it is confiscated, and I don't think there's been a lot of cross-checking yet as to whether it's being stored accurately. Therefore, it seems that this behavior has been repeated several times and caught several times because there was a belief that it would not be caught even if it disappeared. That is why the police will actually know which part of the loophole is the most, so I think it is necessary to change this part by finding a way to fill this loophole.

[Anchor]
I see. That's all I have to say.

I was with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Thank you.