Prosecutor's office, "Kim Gunhee is not prosecuted"..."Drunk Driving" Moon Da-hye attends the police station.

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Bori, anchor Cho Jin-hyuk
■ Starring: Attorney Seo Jeong-bin

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

[Anchor]
The prosecution, which has been investigating the alleged manipulation of Deutsche Motors' stock price for more than four years, has not indicted Kim Gun-hee.

[Anchor]
Dahye, the daughter of former President Moon Jae In, was questioned by the police 13 days after the drunk driving accident. Let's take a look at the main incident that happened during the week. With lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Please come in.

[Anchor]
It's last Thursday. In the Deutsche Motors stock price manipulation case, the prosecution has not indicted Kim Gun-hee. First, let's listen to the relevant content and continue talking.

[Anchor]
The prosecution is not accused of conspiring to commit the crime, is this how you saw it?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. To start with the conclusion, it was concluded that there was a lack of evidence to suggest that Mrs. Kim conspired with the main offenders or knew about the price manipulation crime. To go into more detail, I have two accounts. One can be said to be a discretionary account that is entirely entrusted to employees or officials. In this regard, Kwon Oh-soo or other officials involved in the account have not informed Kim about market manipulation at all.

So there were statements that Mrs. Kim might not have known. I concluded that it is difficult to find evidence such as knowing such facts about this because Mrs. Kim has also made a statement in the same way. And another problem was the account that was directly operated.

Similarly, based on the statements of the officials, it was not possible to know that Mrs. Kim was being used to manipulate the market price. Or, in the end, he was acquitted of the charges by saying that the evidence was not confirmed.

[Anchor]
However, the opposition party continues to attack with this. In particular, there was an account managed by Mrs. Kim herself, and the so-called seven-second sale, the so-called seven-second sale, and the transaction took place within seven seconds after the so-called signal, pointing out that Mrs. Kim Gun-hee's account was used for this part. What do you think is the background of the judgment that came out not guilty to this part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
As you said, on November 1, 2010, there was a message exchanged between the stock manipulation parties and the contents were text messages asking for the sale of stocks. However, seven seconds later, Kim was sold 80,000 shares in her securities account, and this has raised suspicions that Kim knew about the manipulation of the market price.

Regarding this, the prosecution estimates that Kim sold the shares after being contacted by Kwon Oh-soo when she was buying and selling the shares at the time. It is believed that there was an order from Kwon Oh-soo about the trade of the government, but it was judged that there was no evidence to confirm the details of the contact and what kind of perception Kim had.

I heard many other reasons. There is a possibility that Kwon Oh-soo recommended the stock trading without explaining the details to Kim, who he trusts. And from an investor's point of view, it is not easy to predict that the representative of these listed companies will mobilize players to manipulate the market price, and on these grounds, there is no more evidence to prove this claim.

[Anchor]
Earlier, in the related trial appeal trial, Jeonju Son was convicted of aiding and abetting. So whether this charge would be applied to Mrs. Kim, that was also the key. I think the prosecution saw it differently.

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. According to the announcement, the differences between Mr. Son and Mrs. Kim were also clearly discussed. The first is not just an electric pole in the case of Mr. Son, but a professional investor. And in the past, he has participated in the market price manipulation of the main gun Kim.

In addition, looking at the messages exchanged directly with Kim, it is confirmed that he was fully aware of the manipulation of the market price. In contrast, in the case of Mrs. Kim, there is evidence of exchanging such messages and statements from people around her that she lacks experience in investment, so it cannot be judged the same when compared.

[Anchor]
It can be summarized that Kim Gun-hee does not have any special knowledge about stock trading, and the prosecution has not found any special evidence. However, the prosecution held a long four-hour briefing while not prosecuting this time. It's unusual, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. It's been four hours of briefing for such a long time that you can't see similar cases. It is said that the PPT materials that have already been prepared correspond to 181 pages and that they briefed on this for an hour and a half. And because it took two and a half hours to receive questions, the briefing took a long time, and it seems that the briefing has been particularly long because it is a very sensitive event, and the period until the conclusion has been more than four and a half years.

[Anchor]
However, despite the unusually long explanation from the prosecution, various problems have been raised. One of them was cleared without a search and seizure. There's this part. How do you look at this part? [Seo Jeong-bin] In the case of these major cases, it is common to obtain relevant evidence at the beginning of the investigation through seizure and search and conduct investigations.

So, through a warrant, portable devices or electronic devices are confiscated and the contents are checked. In this case, there is much criticism that a warrant has never been requested against Mrs. Kim Gun-hee in connection with the manipulation of Deutsche Motors' stock price.

What the prosecution has now concluded is that it has cleared Kim of charges based on most of the statements made by those involved on whether she was aware of the market price manipulation or not. If the search warrant was requested and proceeded at the beginning of the investigation, there could have been such circumstances that could support the prosecution's claim or evidence that could refute it could have been criticized for being omitted.

[Anchor]
Criticism is mounting that the prosecution has no will to investigate, but if the prosecution finds new evidence, will it be possible to re-prosecute Kim Gun-hee now?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. Re-prosecution can be re-investigated at any time when new evidence or facts are confirmed, and prosecuted at any time when it is determined that the charges are eventually admitted. However, since the investigation has been conducted for a long time, it is quite questionable whether additional new clear evidence will emerge.

[Anchor]
As the non-prosecution is imposed, the controversy will grow further in the future. Opposition parties are also talking about the special prosecution. How do you see it?

[Jeongbin Seo]
If a special prosecutor is introduced, the issue itself seems very simple. In the end, whether there was a perception of Mrs. Kim or not will be a key issue, but since the facts are so complex and there are many statements of those involved, and there are many circumstances that do not seem to fit them, it is expected that considerable debate will take place in judging whether such a perception is possible.

[Anchor]
Let's move on to the next case. Dahye, the daughter of former President Moon Jae In, who is suspected of driving under the influence, attended the police yesterday, 13 days after the accident. Let's look at the scene of attendance at that time and talk about it.

[Anchor]
Some point out that it was investigated after 13 days of attendance, but it was a little later than the usual investigation. What do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
From a lawyer's point of view, the time it took to summon the suspect for about two weeks after the accident occurred, and that is a normal period. Because after the accident, the police need to secure related CCTV or investigate the victim because the victim exists in this case. And after that, it often takes time to schedule a summons with the suspect, so it doesn't seem special that it took about 13 days.

[Anchor]
I attended this time and was investigated for about 4 hours. What part of the investigation did he get?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, there must have been statements about whether alcohol consumption or the measured result value is accepted. In addition, an investigation would have been conducted on how much alcohol you drank at the time, what happened until the accident, and what your behavior was like after that. Usually, in drunk driving cases, the investigation is often completed in 1 to 2 hours, but considering that it took nearly 4 hours, it seems that they would have asked detailed questions.

[Anchor]
Moon Da-hye reportedly reached an agreement with the taxi driver, even though there was a possibility that she could be charged with homicide and injury by dangerous driving, not drunk driving. In this case, what will the charges be?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In this case, dangerous driving death is usually a violation of the Special Act on the Handling of Traffic Accidents when an accident occurs due to drunk driving. However, the drinking condition was so severe that it affected driving. If an accident occurs as a result, it leads to dangerous driving death that can be even more aggravated punishment. The question is whether the injury will eventually be revealed. And the taxi driver, who was known to have been injured for about two weeks at the time, has agreed and has not yet submitted a medical certificate, so in this situation, it will be quite difficult to admit the injury if there is no further submission of the medical certificate, and if that happens, there is a good possibility that he will be punished for simple drunk driving.

[Anchor]
It is known that Moon Da-hye's blood alcohol level was quite high at the time of the accident. Can this part also affect the level of punishment?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Under the Road Traffic Act, sections are divided and legal sentences are set for each section, and this is the case when driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more and less than 0.2%. However, even if you look at this section, Moon Da-hye seems to be quite intoxicated, so this part can be considered in the sentencing against her. In fact, not only this, but even if the injury certificate has not been submitted afterwards, it is true that the accident actually occurred, so this can also be a little disadvantageous when judged.

[Anchor]
In addition to drunk driving, there are various traffic law violations, so will these parts be punished together?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Not only drunk driving, but also illegally parked for about 7 hours before that. It is also said that at the time of driving, traffic laws such as signal violations were violated. The police said that they will check not only drunk driving but also fine such facts and if necessary, they will be punished, so if they are investigated, appropriate fines will be imposed.

[Anchor]
I wonder how the investigation will proceed in the future. If it's one attendance, can I say there's no more attendance?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In normal cases, drunk driving is investigated once and the case proceeds. So, it is expected that there will be no additional summons regarding Moon Da-hye's case. However, there is another opinion that there is a suspicion that the group of men who were with him at the time assisted in drunk driving, so it will not be easy to admit the charge of assistance, but if that part is investigated, Moon Da-hye may be summoned again as a reference although she is not a suspect.

[Anchor]
Now it's the third case, the last case. This is the case of Yonsei University's occasional essay question leakage. The school says that there is no sign of the problem leaking, so there is no retest, and there is no problem with fairness. But there's a new leak?

[Jeongbin Seo]
So, if you look at the situation so far, on October 12th, there was a problem that the test paper, which was to be distributed at 2 o'clock as scheduled at a test site, was distributed about an hour earlier and then collected again in 10 minutes.

In this regard, the school was in a position that there was no such problem that could harm fairness. According to the facts revealed after the test, there were already photos of problems in the online community or test papers before the start of the test.

Above all, there is a situation in which the test takers exchanged messages about some of the leaked questions just before the test. In particular, this student revealed that he did this on his own. He claims to have sent a text message to his friend about some of the questions 30 minutes ago, which is making the impact even bigger.

[Anchor]
In this situation, test takers and parents will file a lawsuit to invalidate the test, what do you think of the issue?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think the issue will be complicated. First of all, whether it is possible to proceed with the invalidation lawsuit of the test itself or not, will the fairness of the actual test be considered to have been undermined? And if it is damaged, whether the problem has occurred enough to determine acceptance and rejection, how far is the school's fault, and whose side should be responsible for leaking some of the test questions in the middle. So if the entire test results are invalidated, I think all of these will be issues about how big the problems will be.

[Anchor]
The announcement date of the successful applicants for the Solidarity Essay is December 13th. Before this, they will also apply for a provisional injunction for suspension of effect, so can a decision be made before that?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think it'll be enough time for that. In the case of provisional disposition, a decision may be made within two to three weeks at the earliest, depending on the urgency of the issue, or a decision may be made in about a month. The date of the announcement of successful applicants is December 13th, so there is still more than a month left, and the issue itself is recognized for some urgency, so if the application for provisional injunction proceeds as scheduled, the decision is expected to be made without being significantly affected by the schedule.

[Anchor]
Then you just said you were confessing your conscience. What punishment will be given to students who leaked these test papers if they are charged? And can you summarize what other responsibilities Yonsei University, the party that caused the controversy, will take?

[Jeongbin Seo]
There could be a crime of obstruction of business. In the case of obstruction of business, it is not necessary to demand the result that the work has actually been hindered, but it is established if it is judged that there is such a risk. Therefore, the fact that these test questions were leaked alone can be seen as a risk of damaging fairness and interfering with the school's work, so it seems highly likely that they will be punished for obstruction of business.

However, Yonsei University sued these students and said it would request an investigation into the fairness of the overall exam. It is the investigative agency's role to admit the charges against the student, and the school's previously problematic mistakes have caused problems with the fairness of the entire test. This part is not actually subject to investigation, and I think it is quite difficult to investigate.

Therefore, these are unlikely to be confirmed in criminal cases, but you can claim compensation for mental or economic damage caused by the school's negligence or invalidity lawsuits filed by students later. If that happens, it is expected that the court battle will be contested by going to a lawsuit for damages.

[Anchor]
Then, do you think Yonsei University has been a little poorly managed under the circumstances? You can see it like this, but do you think it will be a little difficult to take legal responsibility for this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Of course, I will not be held criminally responsible at all, but civil liability can certainly arise in relation to it. Since it is a test managed by the school and the school's employee made a mistake, it seems a little difficult to admit illegality, or negligence, in this regard. The question is how much damage has been caused. It's not easy to prove how much it is financially converted, so this is actually going to be a major issue.

[Anchor]
I see. Let's stop here. I checked with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin, a major incident that happened in a week. Thank you for talking today.