Seungri (Lee Seunghyun) exercised his legal right to confront and personally cross-examine the opposing witness during his fourth hearing resulting in the witness admitting that he had given false statements to the police under duress.
On December 9, Seungri’s fourth hearing continued after a postponement due to COVID-19 pushed back his court date from November 26. He is currently being tried in the Ground Operations Command’s General Military Court in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do.
The fourth hearing, like the third, sheds light on the fact that police asked leading questions to witnesses. The witness testimonies of the last two hearings raised a reasonable doubt about the investigation that led to the indictments against the defendant Seungri.
The trial is designed to hear similar charges together. As such, the third and fourth hearing focused on examining the indictments of prostitution and prostitution mediation. The Prosecution presented evidence via witness testimonies to support their charges. The witnesses for the fourth hearing are Mr. Park, Witness B, Witness C, and Witness D, whose names remain anonymous to protect their identity.
Testimony versus false statements
Mr. Park, a long-time friend of Seungri, had initially provided the investigators with written statements, indicating the former idol’s involvement in Prostitution Mediation. His statements made during interrogations stand as evidence to indict Seungri on the charge of Prostitution Mediation.
His testimony during the trial, however, did not support the Prosecution’s claims. When questioned, Mr. Park testified that it was “Yoo In-seok’s instruction”. Yoo In-Seok, who has admitted to his criminal indictments, gave the Japanese businessman A’s group an order to send a woman (prostitute). Mr. Park further stated that he and Seungri never had a conversation about women in prostitution.
The witness continued to reveal, “Because the prosecution asked a question with confidence that the defendant (Seungri) and Yoo In-Seok were together, I replied ‘that maybe’.”
Seungri questions witness
In response to the witness testimony, Seungri himself asked permission to cross-examine the witness as per his legal rights. The right to confront the opposing witness is essential to ensure honesty and truthfulness and prevent the defendant’s conviction solely based on written evidence such as investigation statements taken during police and prosecution interrogations or other depositions.
Seungri directed his question regarding why Mr. Park had not asked to correct or amend his written statement, which accuses Seungri of prostitution mediation. He started by stating that he was a close friend for 10 years, and he felt embarrassed to see him at that place (court). He added, “I also gave statements more than 40 times that year, and when I read the recorded statements, I answered that it was ‘right’ and ‘seems like that’, but there were a lot of words like this and that other than ‘yes’ and ‘no’”.
Seungri inquired, “Because of my charges, I strongly asked for an opportunity to revise every piece of the statement, but the witness (Mr. Park) did not do the same and if there is a reason why he (Mr. Park) did not request a correction?”
Mr. Park replied, “I’m sorry to the defendant (Seungri), but the psychological pressure on other charges (Mr. Park’s charges) was high; so I couldn’t pay attention to the details of another case (Seungri’s case).”
This was followed by the examination of testimonies presented by Mr. D from Arena MD, Witness B and C.
Prosecution witnesses clear Seungri
According to Mr. D (during the 3rd hearing), “Seungri has never ordered prostitution. Yoo In-Seok did all things,” He also stated, “In-Seok Yoo opened the door as if he wanted to hear it. I heard everything. I wasn’t in a good mood; I was annoyed and miserable. I remember it as a big shock.” Witness B disagreed with who opened the door stating “if he did she would have closed it”.
Witness B disclosed that upon receiving the offer of prostitution mediation the two women made their way to the defendant’s house. It was not until they were on their way that they discovered that the place was Seungri’s. On arrival, they met three or four men. She stated, “I don’t know exactly how many because I was looking at the ground. I couldn’t even see a face.”
Further questioning revealed that witness B was involved in Yoo In-seok’s allegations of prostitution. Witness B announced that she only specified Yoo In-Seok, but did not know who the rest of the men were. She did not see Seungri.
Witness C testified that, while it is true that she had sex with Seungri, it was Yoo In-Seok who paid the price. The defense lawyer denied Seungri’s Prostitution charges. The defense asserted that Seungri did not know that the woman was a prostitute. If the defendant did not know that the person was a prostitute, then the criminal element of knowledge cannot be satisfied.
The fourth hearing’s testimonial evidence is crucial because to prove Seungri is guilty of prostitution charges the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all four elements of intent, knowledge, payment, and the act of furtherance of the crime.
Seungri is a retired member of the popular 2nd generation Kpop band BigBang. His legal battle gained national and international attention due to his celebrity status. The media placed his case front and center.
His eight indictment’s include: prostitution (for self); prostitution mediation (for others between December 2015 to January 2016 to attract investment); embezzlement (22M won disguised as hiring legal representative fee); embezzlement (528M won involving Burning Sun revenues to use for his club Monkey Museum); violation of Food Sanitation Act (involving Monkey Museum wrongfully registering business); habitual gambling (between December 2013 and August 2017 in Las Vegas); distributing obscene material/shooting using camera (single photo of pornographic nature); and violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (illegal monetary exchange of $1 million for casino tokens).
While Seungri still has devoted followers and others willing to wait for his trial’s conclusion before making judgment, some will explicitly claim that Seungri is guilty. Their belief is firm due to the publicity, the media’s biased reports, the social media rumors and misinformation, and a general perception that a “celebrity can get away with crimes”. However, as the trial progresses, it is becoming apparent that one should not leap to conclusions.
4 comments
When all the Prosecution Witness statements supports the Defense claims it raises serious questions about Seungri’s guilt. People need to keep watching the coming hearings carefully. It looks like this case wasn’t what the media had made it out to be.
The most relevant portion of this trial is separating the actual charges that were finally decided upon, from the perceived charges . Throughout the entire time since the story was first reported in the media, only Seungri’s picture has been used to define the incident by the media. Unfortunately, it was not used in reference to his alleged charges but for all the charges of all the alleged suspects. This hyperbolic focusing on one individual confused the general public. This allowed citizens to believe one person, Seungri, was involved in all the aspects of a very large net of alleged criminal activity. When this trial is over, the question will remain, why was this focused on a person in the periphery, rather than on the people who were convicted of major criminal charges?
Since day one people are still sleeping on the fact that they put seungri in forefront of theses cases just to damage bigbang.
Think very carefully who did benefit the most from the bigbang disappearance?
He should have been summoned only as a witness, but they made him the centre and perpetrator of all these cases.
This case should be studied in law schools and universities to give a idea of the extent of corruption of the Korean media, the police and the courts.