Letter of Plea from the Legal Team of Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon

We are asking for help to stop the Moon Jae-in administration’s persecution of Pastor Jun

The Moon Jae-in administration, which calls itself the “candlelight revolution” administration and disguises itself as a representation of the will of the people, has continuously violated the human rights of the citizens of the Republic of Korea based on pro-North Korea ideas. This can be seen in the cases of the repatriation of North Korean defectors and the passing of the anti-leaflet law. We are members of the legal team representing Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon, who is a symbol of political persecution in South Korea. We would like to inform the international community about the reality of Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon’s case and fight together. 

Pastor Jun realized the true nature of the Moon Jae-in administration a long time ago. He began criticizing the administration and fighting against it based on patriotism and Christian beliefs. Even though he was released on December 30, 2020 after the court found him innocent, he was detained for about six months while he was on trial. It was a retaliation of the Moon administration. The prosecution appealed to the court on his initial sentence of not guilty. He is also going through other legal cases. We would like for the people to know about the dirty actions that the Moon administration took against Pastor Jun, and would like to ask for help from the free world to stop this persecution of the reverend. 

1. The Moon administration requested its first arrest warrant on December 24, 2019, citing the protest held on October 3, 2019. More than a million people gathered in Gwanghwamun, central Seoul, on October 3 to protest the tyranny of the Moon administration. Even though a historically large crowd gathered, the rally was remarkably peaceful. However, the Moon administration attempted to detain Pastor Jun under the pretext of minor bruises to police officers and damage to goods. 

2. Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon’s words and actions are not punishable in Korea, which is a free democratic country where freedom of speech is guaranteed as a fundamental right of the people. However, the Moon administration repeatedly investigated, detained, and indicted Pastor Jun. This is because they felt threatened due to the reverend holding large rallies and claiming that the administration follows Juche, North Korean self-reliance ideology, and North Korean communism, and denies the free democratic system stated in the South Korean constitution.

3. We cannot admit Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon’s criminal charges and we cannot understand the warrant claim in terms of the potential for escape and destruction of evidence, which are key points to make a detain under the South Korean criminal prosecution process. Pastor Jun has repeatedly held large scale rallies in the center of Seoul criticizing the Moon Jae-in administration. He has become a national figure, and we cannot admit that there is any possibility of him running away. The government also banned him from leaving the country, so fleeing is simply impossible. In addition, related agencies installed illegal CCTVs at Pastor Jun’s residence to monitor all his actions. The police also frequently contacted Jun. Because of this fact, the investigation agency itself listed only completely irrelevant facts that were not directly related to the concern about his escape. The title of request for a warrant was “concern of escape” but it only had phrases like his “status” or “social responsibility as a public figure.”

4. Investigators also said they feared the destruction of evidence, but acknowledging criminal charges is up to the parties directly involved, and there is a principle of privilege against self-incrimination in this regard. Overcoming these difficulties and proving guilt by collecting evidence is a natural task as an investigative agency and trying to detain a suspect under the guise of preserving evidence is ridiculous and cannot happen in a democracy where people’s fundamental rights are guaranteed.

5. As such, Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon was clear that escape or destruction of evidence were not concerns, and the investigation agency failed to submit any explanation. In the end, the first detention warrant was the political suppression of Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon, and the court rejected the warrant request on the grounds that there was a lack of probable cause of criminal charges and no concern of him running away after hearing on January 2, 2020.

6. However, the investigative agency conducted an investigation to apply for a second warrant for Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon starting from January 3, 2020, a day after the first detention warrant was rejected. They made it clear that they would put Pastor Jun in prison at all costs to prevent the anti-government movement. Investigators have chosen to launch an investigation by using accusations from pro-government civic groups to avoid criticism of the administration’s suppression of basic human rights. In addition, the Seoul branch of the National Election Commission also made issue of Pastor Jun’s remarks at a rally after inspecting all activities, including preaching, texting, remarks and distribution of materials.

7. The Jongro Police Station began its investigation using these people’s accusations, but their abnormal relationship with the investigative agency was revealed during the subsequent investigation. In the case of a complaint, the investigative agency usually investigates the accuser first, but the Jongro Police launched the investigation at the same time as the accusations without even investigating the accuser, indicating that the investigation only took the form of a complaint. This shows that the investigation of the accuser is meaningless because the initiator of the investigation was the Jongro Police station in fact.

8. Additionally, the fact that the government has paid for the investigation of this accusation further illustrates the nature of this case. In the case of a common accusation, the accuser shall submit evidence, and if he or she fails to submit a transcript of the video, the police request that the accuser submit a transcript. In this case, however, the Jongro Police Station spent 5.2 million won ($4,570) on taxpayers’ money to make a transcript of the case filed by the pro-government civic group Peace Tree and make it into evidence. In addition, the documentation was falsely filed as if the cost was to make a transcript of a complaint filed by the National Election Commission, a public body.

9. The prosecution filed a 44-page warrant request that said Pastor Jun violated the Public Official Election Act by getting involved in an election campaign prior to the designated period, and that the reverend defamed the honor of President Moon Jae-in through comments like, “Moon Jae-in is a spy,” and, “The president tried to turn the Republic of Korea toward communism.” Surprisingly, the court issued a detention warrant on February 25, 2020, despite the fact that there were no changes in the circumstances related to the detention requirements after the rejection of the first detention warrant. The court was in line with the request of the administration and dismissed Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon’s request for a habeas corpus. This is tyranny that cannot occur in a free democratic country, and the court, which should guarantee the basic rights of the people, has become a puppet of the administration. In fact, it committed the crime of illegal detention.

10. After the prosecution indicted Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon, his lawyers requested bail for the reverend on March 25, 2020. This was because it was clear that the detention of Pastor Jun was not only very unfair, but also met all the conditions of bail. Moreover, Pastor Jun expected a swift bail decision, as he had undergone major surgery on the cervical vertebrae in April 2018. He also had to be injected with insulin twice a day because he has severe diabetes. The lawyers were expecting immediate bail. Despite repeated calls by the lawyers on bail decision, the court continued to delay its decision and eventually granted bail on April 20, 2020, which was after the April 15 general election.

11. When looking at Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon’s detention and bail, the Moon Jae-in administration put him, who represented a major obstacle to winning the April 15 election, behind bars during the most important time in the election period.  After all, Moon’s party won a landslide victory in the general election, winning more than 180 seats by buying votes with the Covid-19 stimulus cash while keeping Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon in custody. Only after securing the election results could Pastor Jun be released on bail.

12. When the court granted bail to Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon, it added incomprehensible conditions to the bail that are not in the law. This was actually a threat that if he continues to criticize the Moon administration, they can put him back in prison at any time. In fact, the court canceled the bail for Pastor Jun and imprisoned him again for violating his bail conditions on September 7, 2020. The court canceled the bail because Pastor Jun’s remarks at the Gwanghwamun rally in Seoul on Liberation Day on August 15, 2020, were a violation of bail permit conditions that he should not participate in illegal rallies or rallies related to the indictment case. However, the indictment was related to the April 15 general election, and there could not be a rally related to the election because the election was already over. Also, the August 15 rally was not illegal because it was even approved by a court. At that time, the Moon Jae-in administration prohibited all of the Independence Day rallies, citing the danger of Covid-19. This is why the organizer requested an approval from the court. Nevertheless, as the huge crowd gathered at the rally, the Moon administration launched a barrage of criticism by mobilizing politicians and the media. The court decided to detain Pastor Jun, who was invited to the rally and spoke for a short period of time, without hearing Jun’s explanations. Although the reality is that it was a political retaliation, Pastor Jun was detained through propaganda and public opinion manipulated by the media. 

13. The court later rejected all appeals and requests made by the lawyers for new bail, and Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon was eventually held at the Seoul Detention Center until the judgment of the first trial on December 30, 2020.

14. It was difficult to find Pastor Jun guilty considering the relevant cases, and eventually the court found him not guilty on December 30, 2020, and he was released. The acquittal was made based on claims by our lawyers throughout the trial process. The court refused to release Pastor Jun even though the charges against Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon could not be proven through a long hearing.

15. Pastor Jun was found not guilty on December 30, 2020, but the prosecution appealed immediately, and the second trial is ongoing. In addition, the prosecution further charged him with distributing newspapers criticizing the Moon administration at the rally and calling for people to support a free right-wing party. Regarding the distribution of newspapers related to elections, the ban is a violation of the people’s basic political rights, as other court has already accepted a request for legal trial over unconstitutionality. The Constitutional Court is currently looking at the constitutionality of banning unusual distribution of newspapers during the election period. There is a high possibility that the ban violates people’s political basic rights. In addition, the additional charges were investigated and prosecuted through very unfair procedures, which are very similar to the previous case in which he was acquitted. It is clear that the true intention of the additional indictment is to harass Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon until the end and put him in prison so that he can no longer criticize the Moon administration. Our lawyers believe that unless Pastor Jun stops criticizing the Moon administration, the illegal investigation and prosecution of Pastor Jun will continue.

No one can exist above the law in a country ruled by law. All citizens of the Republic of Korea must abide by the law, including judges, and judges must strictly abide by the law more than anyone else, as they are people who apply and declare the law. The judges’ mission is to protect the basic rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution from the tyranny of power, and for this purpose, our constitution and laws guarantee the independence of the judiciary. People respect judges who make fair rulings without political influence. However, the Korean court has already abandoned its role as a fundamental human rights guarantee agency and turned into a cowardly institution seeking only its own complacency, while only caring about what those in power and the general public think.  Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon’s case shows how Korean courts and judges deal with cases under the name of removing deep-rooted corruption. 

Through witness questioning of police officers at the Jongro Police Station, it was revealed that this was a case of abuse of public power that is virtually impossible in a free democratic country. It took the form of accusations by civic groups, but the reality was that the investigation agency played a key role and created evidence using taxpayers’ money to indict him.  The issuance of warrants, prosecutions, cancellation of bail, and subsequent rejection of bail requests clearly show that the court, which should be defending the basic rights of the people and serve as a check against abuse of power, has become a tool for this unfair suppression.

There is no regime that lasts forever. Sooner or later, there will be a judgment levied against the tyranny of this administration. The tip of the sword they’re wielding will eventually face their necks. Now, the lawyers will drop their attitude of trusting the judiciary and focusing on legal battles. Instead, we are going to inform the world of the true nature of the abuse on Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon’s basic human rights and fight with conscientious forces around the world.

We appeal to everyone in the free world to join us in our fight.

July 6, 2021

Lawyers representing Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon

Resume

PERSONAL INFORMAION

 Name: Cheong, Jin-Gyeong

 Date of Birth: May 10th, 1963

 Marital Status: Married

 Address: [Home] No.301 211-86 Sangdo-Dong, Dongjak -Gu, Seoul, 07035, Korea

 [Office] 5th Fl. Youngjin Bldg. 52 Seochojungang-Ro, Seocho- Gu, Seoul, 06640, Korea 

 Telephone: [Office] 82-2-583-0010, [Cell] 82-10-6637-1037

 Facsimile: [Office] 82-2-583-0150

 E-mail Address: jc3289@naver.com

EDUCATION

  The Judicial Research and Training Institute(affiliated to the Supreme Court)

     Mar. 1986 – Feb. 1988

Duke Law School, Durham, N.C., U.S.A. 

   Master of Law. Aug. 1997 – May. 1998

The College of Law, Seoul National University

   Ph. D. Mar. 2000 – Feb. 2003.(Ph. D., 2008)

   Master of Law. Mar. 1985 – Feb. 1988.(LL. M., 1998)

   Bachelor of Law. Mar. 1981 – Feb. 1985.(LL.B., 1985)

Federal Judicial Center(D.C.) & National Center for State Court(Williamsburg VA)

   Visiting Foreign Judicial Fellow Feb. 2003-May. 2003

PROFESSIONAL CAREER

 Editorial Board Member, Supreme Court Labor Law Research Association

 Counselor, Ministry of Employment & Labor  

 Auditor, Korea Social Security Law Society  

 International Committee Member of Korean Bar Association

Vice President, Korea Labor Law Society

 Executive Director, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law

International Committee Chairman of Lawyers for Human Rights and Unification of Korea(present)

Apr. 2021- Present: Executive Partner, Attorney at Law(Seok & Cheong Law Firm)

Mar. 2015-Mar. 2021: Executive Partner, Attorney at Law(Cheong & Partners Law Firm)

Jul. 2014-Feb. 2015: Attorney at Law(Sinchon Law Firm)

 Sep. 2012 –Jan. 2014: Professor, Chungnam National Univ. Law School

Mar. 2010 – Aug. 2012: Attorney at Law(Jeong-Se Law Firm)

Feb. 2009 – Feb. 2010: Presiding Judge, Seoul Central District Court

Feb. 2008 – Feb. 2009: Chairman, Gangbuk County Election Commission 

Feb. 2007 – Feb. 2009: Presiding Judge, Seoul Northern District Court

Feb. 2005 – Feb. 2007: Presiding Judge, Goyang Branch of Uijungbu District Court

                   Chairman, Deogyang County Election Commission 

Feb. 2003 – Feb. 2005: Presiding Judge, Gwangju District Court 

Feb. 2002 – Feb. 2003: Judge, Seoul District Court

Feb. 2000 – Feb. 2002: Judge, Seoul High Court

Mar. 1997 – Feb. 2000: Judge, Northern Branch of Seoul District Court

Mar. 1996 – Feb. 1997: Chairman, Osan City Election Commission

                   Chairman, Hwasung County Public Official Ethics Committee 

Mar. 1994 – Feb. 1997: Judge, Suwon District Court

Feb. 1991 – Feb. 2004: Judge, Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court

                   Chairman, Dangjin County Election Commission

                   Chairman, Dangjin County Public Official Ethics Committee 

Mar. 1989 – Feb. 1991: Judge, Daejeon District Court

PUBLICATIONS

Book

1. REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL, 1^st ed., Kyungin Publishing Co. (2009)
2. TRADE UNION AND LABOR RELATIONS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1st ed., Pakyoungsa (2015, cowriter)
3. LABOR STANDARD ACT, 2nd ed., Pakyoungsa (2020, cowriter)

Thesis

1. Retirement Payment Calculation of the Workers Retired among the Period of Cancellation of Position – Supreme Court Decision No. 92Da20309 dated April 12th, 1994(Retirement Allowance Case), Labor Law Review vol. 4, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (1994), 263-279.
2. Retirement Payment Calculation of the Workers Retired among the Period of Cancellation of Position – Supreme Court Decision No. 92Da20309 dated April 12th, 1994(Retirement Allowance Case), Labor Law Review vol. 4, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (1994), 263-279.
3. Retirement Allowance Calculation of the Workers Retired after Cancellation of Position, Judicial Research Material vol. 22, Court Library (1995), 385-450.
4. Average Wage Calculation Method of the Workers Retired after temporary rest, Research on Trial, Suwon District Court (1996), 211-236.
5. Employer’s Refusal of Reinstatement and Claim for Emotional Distress, Review of 1996 Labor Law Cases, Lawyers for a Democratic Society (1997), 179-207.
6. Refusal of Reinstatement and Damages for Emotional Distress –Focused on Whether to Admit Claim for Work, Labor Law Review vol. 6, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (1997), 498-536.
7. Unfair Dismissal and Damages for Emotional Distress, Labor Law Review vol. 7, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (1998), 305-338.
8. Remedies for Wrongful Discharge under the United States Legal System – Judicial Remedies, LL. M. thesis, Seoul National University(1998).
9. Modification of Employment At-Will Doctrine and Remedies in the U.S. –Related  to the Dispute on the Labor Market Flexibility Issue in Korea(written in English and presented at the Labor Law Session of the 16^th Biennial LAWASIA Conference which was held Sep. 7-11, 1998, Seoul, Korea), LAWASIA Material Book (1999). 
10. Modification of Employment At-Will Doctrine in the U.S. and Restrictions on Wrongful Discharge, Labor Law Review vol. 8, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (1999), 262-291.
11. Validity of Labor Union By-laws Requiring for Members’ Prior Approval of Collective Bargaining Agreements, JUSTICE vol. 33 No 4, Korean Legal Center (2000), 179-197.
12. Research on Judicial Remedies for Wrongful Discharge in the U.S., Journal of Labor Law vol. 10, Korea Society of Labor Law (2000), 309-330.
13. Unfair Dismissal and Torts –Focusing on Claim for Emotional Distress, Issues and Problems in Labor Law, Essays in Honor of Professor Kim Yoo-Sung for his Sixtieth Birthday (2000), 237-263.
14. Judicial Reform Plan Related to the Independence of Judiciary, Human Rights and Justice, Korean Bar Association (2001), 116-130.
15. Right to make a Collective Agreement of Union’s Representative and Justification of Strike, Review of  2000 Labor Law Cases, Lawyers for a Democratic Society (2001), 196-216. 
16. A Paper on the improvement of Personnel Management System of Judges, JURIST No. 383 (2002), 30-34.
17. Interest of Right Protection in Unfair Dismissal Lawsuits, Labor Law Review vol. 12, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (2002), 35-70. 
18. Disadvantageous Changes to Working Conditions – Focusing on the Korean Supreme Court’s Decisions on Disadvantageous Changes through Work Rules and Collective Bargaining Agreements (translated into English), Journal of Korean Law Vol. 2 No 2, Seoul National University College of Law (2002), 53-110.
19. Right to Collective Bargain and to make a Collective Agreement of Union’s Representative, Labor Law Lecture, Seoul Natioal University Collage of Law Specified Field Reseach Course vol. 7, Bubmunsa (2002), 510-536.  
20. Procedural Justification of Strike and Crime of Interference of Business – Focusing on Strike without Union Member’s Vote, JUSTICE vol. 72, Korean Legal Center (2003), 201-244.
21. Pretrial Release and Detention at the U.S. Federal Courts, Bubjo vol. 570, Korean Lawyers Association (2004), 268-293.
22. Practical Use of ADR at the U.S. Courts, Mudeungchunchu vol. 8, Kwangju Bar Asoociation (2004), 59-80.
23. Collective Bargain over Managerial Subjects, Supreme Court. Law Review vol. 39, Court Library (2004), 237-332.
24. So-called “Managerial Prerogative” and Subjects of Collective Bargaining, Research on Trial Practice 2004, Kwangju Disrtict Court (2005), 79-91.
25. A Paper on the Composition and Function of the Supreme Court, Advocacy for a Democratic Society vol 65, Lawyers for a Democratic Society (2005), 24-32. 
26. Practical Use of Early Pretrial Conference – Focusing on Practical Use at Goyang Branch Court Civil Division 1, JUSTICE vol. 88, Korean Legal Center (2005), 166-188.
27. Practical Use of Markman Hearing at the U.S. Federal Courts, Research on Patent Litigation vol. 3, Patent Court (2005), 327-348.
28. Subjects of Collective Bargaining in the U.S., Labor Law Review vol. 19, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (2005), 475-522.
29. Litigation for Nullity Affirmation of Discharge and Rule of Faithfulness(Lapse Rule), Supreme Court. Law Review vol. 43, Court Library (2006), 537-602.
30. Wage Claim of Unfairly Dismissed Employee and Deduction of Interim Earnings, Being and What should be of Labor Law(Retirement Commemoration Treatise Book of Professor Yoo-Sung Kim), Pakyoungsa (2006), 124-156.    
31. A Paper about People’s Participation in Criminal Trial Act Bill (Observing Mock Trial on April 12, 2006), Bubjo vol. 601, Korean Lawyers Association (2006), 251-288.
32. A Paper about People’s Participation in Trial, Advocacy for a Democratic Society vol 72, Lawyers for a Democratic Society (2006), 69-74.
33. Collective Bargaining regarding Managerial Subjects – Focusing on Comparison with the U.S., JUSTICE vol. 92, Korean Legal Center (2006), 122-141.
34. Early Pretrial Conference Date Designation and Oral Argument of Goyang Branch Court Civil Division, JUSTICE vol. 94, Korean Legal Center (2006), 164-182.
35. Pretrial Conference at U.S. Courts, Bubjo vol. 608, Korean Lawyers Association (2007), 187-269.
36. Matters to be attended of Jury Trial According to “Law Regarding National Participation in Criminal Trial” –Based on the Experience of Mock Trial on April 12, 2006, JUSTICE vol. 100, Korean Legal Center (2007), 97-126.
37. Remedies for Unfair Dismissal, Ph. D. thesis, Seoul National University (2008).
38. Unfair Dismissal and Criminal Punishment, Labor Law Review vol. 24, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (2008), 221-256. 
39. Unfair Dismissal and Wage Claim, JURIS vol. 5, Judiciary Development Foundation (2008), 105-143.
40. An Examination on Effective Fulfillment Remedies of Unfair Dismissal Remedy Order, Labor Law Review vol. 25, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (2008), 151-182.
41. A Study on the Problems of Labor Boards as an Unfair Dismissal Relief Organization and the Alternative Plans, Labor Law Review vol. 26, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (2009), 1-24.
42. Changes and Prospects of Precedents Related to Dismissal, Trial Material Book vol. 118, Court Library (2009), 31-70. 
43. Case Management Model of 13^th Civil Division of Seoul Northern District Court, Bubjo vol. 632, Korean Lawyers Association (2009), 358-416.
44. Compulsory Performance Fine against Relief Order Nonperformance, Supreme Court. Law Review vol. 49, Court Library (2009), 477-528. 
45. A Study on Court Annexed Mediation, Registered at Court Net(2009, not published)
46. Medical Malpractice Trial Using Expert Trial Committee Member, Registered at Court Net(2010, not published) 
47. Simplified Opinion Case Book, Registered at Court Net(2010, Joint Writing, not published)
48. Oral Argument Case Book of Medical Malpractice Trial Using Expert Trial Committee Member, Registered at Court Net(2010, Joint Writing, not published)  
49. New Theories  related to Judicial Remedies for Unfair Dismissal, Labor Law Review vol. 30, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (2011), 165-196.
50. Unfair Dismissal based on Torts Theory, Research on Labor Law Practice vol. 1, Supreme Court Labor Law Research Association (2011), 685-712. 
51. Judgment of courts in case original job has been disappeared during the retrial adjudication revocation litigation of unfair dismissal by employer, Labor Law Review vol. 35, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (2013), 149-180.
52. Removal from Positions of Civil Servants and Application of the Administrative Procedure Act, Labor Law Review vol. 36, Seoul National University Society of Labor Law (2014), 243-264.