Controversy Over Failure to Uphold the Principle of Presumption of Innocence and Trial by Evidence
Original Article Here | Archived | Archived PDF
The only evidence in Pastor Jung’s trial was a 97-minute recording submitted by a complainant from Hong Kong, Ms. M. Some of the recordings were released on JTBC in 2022 and on Netflix’s “In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal” in 2023, dealing a fatal blow to the negative public opinion about Pastor Jung.
Pastor Jung’s defense lawyers have argued that Ms. M, who usually recorded Pastor Jung’s sermons and daily conversations, manipulated and edited Pastor Jung’s audio recordings with the help of anti-JMS activists to create tainted evidence that imitates sexual assault situations.
The trial court denied the request to examine the recordings, but the Appellate Court allowed it, sparking strong protests from Ms. M and anti-JMS activist K and public pressure on the Court. Some interpreted this to mean that they were concerned that the manipulation of the recordings would expose their involvement in filing a premeditated complaint.
After intense debate over the recording’s authenticity, the Appeals Court refused to admit it as evidence during the sentencing on October 2. Considering that Ms. M had disposed of the mobile phone containing the original recording, making it impossible to compare it with the original, and that the time information in the file structure could be modified while retaining the bitrate even after editing, the Appeals Court concluded that the recording’s authenticity and integrity could not be sufficiently proven.
The Appeals Court did not acknowledge that the recordings had been manipulated or edited. It also found it difficult to conclude that the complainant had intentionally disposed of the mobile phone used for the recordings with the aim of concealing the manipulation and editing of the recordings.
When Pastor Jung’s lawyers had copies of the recordings examined by experts such as the Sound Engineering Research Institute in Korea and the American Forensic Institute in the United States, they found 50 instances where a third party’s voice was heard. The main suspect sections, such as “Yes, here, keke,” “Quiet, quiet, quiet, strange,” “Okay,” and “Yes,” were demonstrated to the Court during the trial.
Some of the 50+ third-party voices found in the recordings. (Source=Whistleblower)
In particular, Professor Bae Myung-Jin of the Sound Engineering Research Institute testified at the sixth trial court that through the course of four rounds of examination with five sound analysis experts the overall recordings were edited and manipulated: ▲ The “mouse click” at the beginning and end of the recordings, which could not have occurred while recording on a mobile phone ▲ The sound of water spraying and the sound of the water pump power breaker at a nearby watering hole 50 meters away from the alleged incident site as claimed by the complainant ▲ The sound of a mobile phone vibrating during the recording, even though the iPhone does not vibrate while recording.
Waveform of a “mouse click” found in a file allegedly recorded on a cell phone. (Source: informant)
Nevertheless, the Appeals Court ruled that it was questionable whether Professor Bae’s method of analysis was widely recognized in academia and in practice and that it could not prove the manipulation and editing of the recordings. This has led to criticism that the theoretical basis was not presented clearly enough for the Court to be convinced.
During the sixth hearing, the examination of a witness, the Court asked the prosecution’s witness for his opinion on Professor Bae’s method of analyzing the recordings, but the witness did not deny Professor Bae’s method, saying, “I don’t know, it’s not our method.” This is explained by the fact that the witness and Professor Bae’s team had different majors and different methods of analyzing the recordings.
Appeals Court Takes Evidence as “Important Material”
Ex-CGM L’s Evidences Were Not Taken Into Account in the Verdict at All
In the period preceding the final hearing of Pastor Jung’s appeal, a former CGM church member, Mr. L, sent a certification of contents to MBC, Producer Cho, the Court, and Pastor Jung’s lawyers on August 16 and September 3 on two separate occasions. The documents were accepted as evidence by the Appeals Court at the concluding hearing in September, saying that they were “likely to be important” and were expected to be crucial in overturning the verdict against Pastor Jung.
The documents included KakaoTalk conversations between Mr. L, the Hong Kong national complainant, and anti-JMS activist Mr. K, in which the complainants admitted that they had made prior arrangements with anti-JMS activists and pastors of established churches for the purpose of money, and that they had deliberately recorded their conversations with Pastor Jung, and they admitted that the recordings were not suitable as evidence of sexual assault.
It was also found that anti-JMS activist K, who had been speculated to be the mastermind behind the case, took the lead in filing a planned lawsuit by gathering the alleged victims and offering to pay for their lawyers. The complainant, M, also revealed that she had left CGM because she wanted to get a boyfriend, not because she thought CGM was strange.
However, the final appellate judgement made no mention of Mr. L’s evidence, and it was found to have no impact on the outcome of Pastor Jung’s trial. The CGM church members complained of injustice, saying that the Trial Court did not give the evidence sufficient consideration, even though it contained clear evidence that Pastor Jung was falsely accused for monetary gain and that the recordings were edited and manipulated.
Tribunal Recognizes Unproven “Psychological Irresistibility by Doctrine”
A distinctive feature of Pastor Jung Myung-Seok’s trial is that the prosecution argued that the complainants were “incapable of resistance due to CGM doctrine.” The argument is that even in the absence of assault and intimidation, the complainants were subjected to sexual victimization due to their absolute submission to the authority of their religious leaders and their psychological inability to use logical judgements. This argument was commonly applied in the additional indictments.
However, the prosecution’s main charge was based on a distorted interpretation of CGM’s main doctrines from the perspective of established Christian denominations and anti-JMS activists, which differed significantly from CGM’s actual doctrines. Pastor Jung’s defense argued that the prosecution’s indictment was a “false indictment” that failed to prove the facts of the charge because it claimed to have indoctrinated the complainants with non-existent doctrines.
The prosecution’s case is that Pastor Jung made his church members believe that he was the Messiah, the Second Coming, or someone above Jesus, and that he made them submit to his absolute authority by threatening them with getting cancer or going to Hell if they didn’t listen to him.
According to Pastor Jung’s defense lawyers, there are significant differences between traditional Christian doctrine and Pastor Jung’s interpretation of the concept of “messiah.”
Traditional Christian doctrine interprets a messiah as a divine being with strong religious authority or absolute dominion, stating that “a messiah is the same as an absolute deity, and Jesus is the only messiah.” Pastor Jung, on the other hand, defines a messiah as “a human being, not a deity, who plays a role in evangelizing people to hear and practice God’s Word.”
Furthermore, the defense argued that the concept of the “Second Coming of Jesus” in CGM’s doctrine is the return of Jesus in spirit and does not equate Pastor Jung with Jesus. In fact, videos of Pastor Jung’s sermons submitted as evidence shows him calling himself “Jesus’ errand boy,” “I am a line manager,” “Jesus is the tree, we are the branches,” and other sermons in which he humbles himself and emphasizes a life centered on only Jesus and God.
In another video submitted as evidence, Pastor Jung is heard preaching to his congregation that the church members should respect free will and make their own decisions, saying, “You shouldn’t interfere, you shouldn’t over-manage,” and “God doesn’t tell you to do this or that.” This is incompatible with the concept of irresistibility. The complainants themselves have documented on social media that they traveled freely in and out of the country and abroad during the period of their appeal of damage, as well as their work and leisure activities. This evidence indicates that there was no surveillance and control within the Mission that could have caused psychological irresistibility.
In addition to this, the prosecution alleged that CGM educated the complainant to accept sexual contact with Pastor Jung Myung-Seok through the Bridegroom-Bride doctrine. However, the Bridegroom-Bride doctrine in CGM’s doctrine is a spiritual love that follows and practices the Word and is not physical love. The bridegroom is God, the subject of spiritual love, and the bride is the object of God’s love: all men, women, and children around the world, including Pastor Jung himself.
The complainant also acknowledged during her testimony that the bridegroom doctrine is a figurative concept and not a physical relationship, and another complainant wrote a post on an anti-JMS online community after leaving CGM, which she later deleted, indicating that CGM does not have a doctrine that prescribes physical love.
However, on October 2, the Appeals Court upheld the prosecution’s main case, as did the Trial Court.
The complainants’ diaries and notes, submitted by Pastor Jung’s defense, showed that they were free to act contrary to the doctrine even after joining CGM, and Pastor Jung’s defense cited this as decisive evidence to expose the contradictions in the prosecution’s case. However, the Appeals Court interpreted the complainants’ fear of not being saved due to their failure to properly observe the doctrine and their desire for religious salvation made Pastor Jung irresistible to them.
In the end, neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court were able to escape the negative public opinion that has been prevalent in society about the Mission and Pastor Jung since the Netflix series “In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal” aired. As a result, it seems that a typical “public opinion trial” and “religious trial” were conducted, rather than a fair trial based on the principle of presumption of innocence and evidentialism.
O-Seok Yang, Reporter
