Jeong Cheolseung, Accused of 'Disclosing Park Won-soon Victim's Identity, Molesting Junior Lawyer,' Detained in Court on Appeal

Sentenced to 1 Year and 6 Months in Prison

Attorney Jeong Cheolseung, who was indicted on charges of disclosing the identity of a victim in the sexual violence case involving the late former Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon and molesting a junior colleague, was taken into custody in court during his appeal trial.

Attorney Jeong Cheolseung. Yonhap News

The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 4-2, comprising Presiding Judge Sung Jiyong and Judges Jeon Jiwon and Kim Ingyeom, overturned the lower court rulings in full on Oct. 30 and sentenced Jeong to one year and six months in prison. He was also ordered to complete 40 hours of sexual violence treatment programs. Jeong was indicted on charges including indecent assault causing injury, violating confidentiality under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, and violating the Personal Information Protection Act.

Jeong is accused of posting several times on his personal social media account, around August 2021, material that could identify B, a victim in the sexual violence case involving former Mayor Park. He was also accused of molesting and injuring A, a junior attorney whom he first met at a wine bar in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on March 27, 2023, while he was serving as an auditor for the Korean Bar Association. The courts of first instance sentenced him to one year in prison in each of the two cases.

The appellate court rejected Jeong's argument that physical evidence, including closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage, contradicted A's testimony. It found that A's testimony could not be considered inconsistent with the video analysis report and CCTV footage, and that there was sufficient evidence of guilt. The court also rejected the argument that the three instances of physical contact should be assessed separately. It said they should be viewed as a series of acts against the same victim in the same setting and that, even if assessed individually, each went beyond the level of ordinary physical contact. However, the court found that A's depression resulted from the subsequent litigation and legal dispute. Accordingly, as in the first-instance ruling, it found Jeong not guilty of causing injury.

The court found that disclosing B's identity clearly violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes. Although the posts did not name B, details about her work and other information made it possible for Seoul city officials and others to identify her. On the defamation charge, the court found the posts false because they clearly differed from information officially established in a decision by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea and rulings in related litigation. It rejected Jeong's argument that he acted in the public interest, saying that even if his motives were pure, the means had to be appropriate and the harm to the victim was substantial. The court also upheld the guilty verdict for violating the Personal Information Protection Act, finding that information learned while serving as the victim's legal representative could not be considered publicly available.

In explaining its sentence, the court criticized Jeong's response after the incident. It said the case might not have escalated to this extent if Jeong had simply apologized when A raised the issue, acknowledging that he may have made a mistake. The court also noted that Jeong continued to criticize the victim on social media after the first-instance ruling and that his conduct during the appeal was not significantly different.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.