User:Lemon Orange28/sandbox

= Seungri's Case and Scandal = Introduction

First Trial
Seungri’s first trial took place in the General Military Court of the Ground Operations Command in Yongin City, Gyeonggi Province, between September 16th, 2020 to August 12th, 2021. There were at least twenty-five hearings, where a total of nine charges were brought against Seungri. The trial initially began with eight charges which included: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Violation of Food Sanitation Act, Embezzlement under Business/Occupation, Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment etc. of Sexual Crimes, Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Prostitution, Habitual Gambling, Violation of Foreign Exchange Transaction Act and Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Prostitution. Seungri denied all of these charges except the Violation of the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act.

Seungri’s side refuted most of the prosecution’s evidence which included statements provided by investigators. They claimed that all charges, except Violation of the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act, were committed by Seungri’s former business partner, Yoo In-seok alone. This led the prosecution to bring in several witnesses and shift their focus to proving the accomplice relationship between Seungri and Yoo In-seok. In January 2021, the military prosecution added a new charge, Co-principal in Inciting Aggravated Assault. The presiding judges in the trial were Colonel Hwang Min-je, Lieutenant Colonel Kim Ae-ryong and Major Seok Yong-shik.

Prosecution's Argument
The prosecution claimed that Seungri mediated prostitution services for foreign investors from countries such as Taiwan and Japan on twenty-four occasions. This allegedly took place between September 2015 and January 2016 through female employees of adult entertainment establishments, identified as Ms. Choi and Ms. Kim. They claimed that the motive behind this charge was to attract investment for clubs, general capital and other purposes. There were two different instances of this charge. The first instance was said to have occurred at a Christmas party in Cheongdam-dong, Seoul, in December 2015 and the second at a party at Arena Club, Gangnam. Regarding this, the prosecution argued that Seungri mediated prostitution by inviting female adult entertainment workers to the party and paying them.

Defense's Argument
Seungri’s side denied this charge and disagreed with most of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. The defense lawyer argued that Seungri had no motive to mediate sexual favours and that he had never been involved in such an act with his business partner, Yoo In-seok, who acted alone. The defense added that since some of the investors – particularly those said to be from Hong Kong – were not named, then the charge was groundless because no motive could be found for mediating prostitution for unknown people. A similar argument was made for the Japanese and Taiwanese investors. There were also no records to show Seungri’s involvement in requesting and paying for prostitutes.

Witness Testimonies, Evidence and Rebuttals
In the second hearing, the prosecution applied to summon a total of nine witnesses, including Jung Joon-young, Yoo In-seok and Kim In-Cheol for the charges of prostitution, prostitution mediation and illegal filming. The defense also proposed to summon foreign women in relation to the charges; nevertheless, the judge dismissed them as insufficient to directly prove who partook in the prostitution. He advised the defense to contact them themselves, to which Seungri’s lawyer replied that the witnesses were unreachable and he would check if a document statement would suffice.

In the third hearing, it was revealed that the court would hear testimonies of twenty-two witnesses every Thursday from November 19, 2020 until December of that year. Yoo In-seok and Jung Joon-young were scheduled to appear as witnesses but did not appear. Yoo In-seok’s absence was due to being occupied by his own trial, while Jung Joon-young cited illness and lack of knowledge about Seungri’s embezzlement charge and others. The court added that if they refused to attend future hearings, they would receive a minor fine.

A former MD (merchandiser) of Arena club and Seungri’s longtime friend, Kim In-cheol, testified. Kim, who was serving a prison sentence at the time, stated, “There was an order from Yoo In-seok, not Seungri, and I just introduced the women and helped them move to the vehicle as they were told.” [51] Regarding messages Seungri sent in the KakaoTalk group chat such as, “Kim Lim is coming to Korea,” “Take care well,” and “Do what Kim Lim wants,” he explained: Kim Lim absolutely came to Arena, and Yoo In-seok and others also mentioned ‘Take care of her’ and other things, so that they (Kim Lim and her group) would get a good table at the club.” He explained, “As MDs, we interpreted it as an order to take good care of our close friends’ acquaintances and to treat them well in the club.” Kim Lim is a famous Singaporean model and the daughter of Peter Kim, the owner of Valencia FC.

About the instance of prostitution mediation around the time, Kim testified that he met with Seungri’s Japanese friend, Koji Aoyama. He denied Seungri’s involvement in prostitution mediation and said it was Yoo In-seok who gave the order. He also said that Seungri was too busy to be involved in such a thing [59]. Additionally, he confessed that he couldn’t remember the situation well but he remembered having an argument with Seungri and leaving the group chat room (which also included Yoo In-seok). However, they settled their differences later. When asked about conversations about prostitution mediation that he shared with Yoo In-seok and others, he replied, “It was Yoo In-seok’s order, and I just did what he told me to do."

Contents of the group chat room which included Kim, Seungri, Yoo In-seok, Jung Joon-young and others were discussed. On December 7th, referring to Kim Lim and her friends, Seungri (who was overseas at the time) said to Kim in the group chat, “Set the main table and call the girls.” Later followed by, “Girls? Send the ones that give well.” Kim replied, “I’m calling them but I’m wondering if they will give. I’m calling a ssanmai now.” The judge asked, “What was the thing that was given?” To this, Kim didn’t answer quickly. He explained, “At the time we were very young and took it as a joke. I heard the expression ‘ssanmai’ is also used as a joke. I didn’t think of it as a sexual conversation.” Yoo In-seok also wrote in the groupchat, “I sent whores.” Kim stated, “I said yes without knowing its meaning. It was an urgent reply while I was at work.” Seungri’s side clarified that this was sent long after Seungri’s message from earlier and that he was not involved in that part of the conversation due to work. In the cross-examination, Seungri’s side asked, “It’s a private conversation between young men that seems inappropriate. Rather than referring to sex, could they just have been rather crude expressions for women who act hot?” To which Kim replied, “That’s right.”

Kim was interrogated six times by the police and revealed that during the police investigation, the investigator at the time showed only some parts of text messages as evidence, as if he had already decided on the answer. He further revealed, “I was tired of the long interrogation, and there were a lot of questions.” He went back on some of his past statements made during the police interview, stating, “I made the statement, ‘The woman called by Seungri and Yoo In-seok’ after I had previously answered that I didn’t know. It’s because the police kept on repeating their words." He also stated, “I relied on distorted memories because I was going through a guided interrogation." Kim further testified,”Seungri never mediated prostitution. In the police investigation, I said that Seungri and Yoo In-seok acted together. But now that I think about it, it was Yoo In-seok. When a group of Japanese were paired with prostitutes, the prostitutes accompanied them to the hotel under the direction of Yoo In-seok. In the police investigation, since I couldn’t remember clearly, I said that Yoo In-seok, Seungri and Madam A seemed to have planned it. But when asked about the situation right now and I think about it, it was Yoo In-seok who did it."

Kim continued, “Seungri had frequent overseas performances, so he didn’t reply quickly in the group chat room. As an entertainer, he was conscious of people and warned his friends about what they said and did. He has always liked to throw big parties like ‘The Great Gatsby,’ but he has never talked about sexual desire." He added, “Even though he’s young, he acted as a leader with myself and others. He was careful of what he saw on the outside. He has always done a lot of giving." Kim also clarified his role as an MD, “Working as a club MD, I called my acquaintances, managed tables, poured drinks and received orders. Yoo In-seok sent prostitutes but I have absolutely no idea about the extent of his involvement in prostitution. I just took the Taiwanese men to the front door because they weren’t enjoying themselves."

When Yoo In-seok said in the group chat room that he was sending a gift, it was revealed that Kim replied, “What’s the gift?” Kim recalled that two prostitutes came to his house and that Jung Joon-young also received prostitutes. He also recounted, “That day I exchanged messages with Jung Joon-young and learned that there were extra prostitutes remaining from those assigned to the Japanese group. I also found out that they had to pay high prices."

Following the witness questioning, the judge pointed out the fact that the group of Japanese businessmen invested in Seungri’s business after they allegedly received prostitution services. Seungri himself explained that the December 2015 party was to repay his foreign friends who threw him birthday parties in each country he visited during overseas tours with BIGBANG. He explained, “In 2015, I was on a world tour working as a group. The members usually stayed at hotels when we went abroad. But since I like people and parties, I went to clubs in each country and had time to get acquainted with people.” He added, “I decided to invite everyone by holding a Christmas party in a hurry because I thought I couldn’t just accept it when I returned to Korea. It was a gathering of friends from various countries, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, the United States, the Philippines, Malaysia, Japan, and other countries."

Seungri clarified more of the details, “The investigation was conducted based on the KakaoTalk conversations, so it wasn’t made known how the gathering was organized. There are also many differences in the related facts. The party was just to gather all my acquaintances, not for investment. At the time, I was not in a position where I was lacking in money or financial resources, so there was no need for me to rely on investments to do what I wanted. We also established a corporation in Hong Kong for fairness.” He confirmed that the Japanese group, which included Koji Aoyama, invested in Aori Ramen but it would’ve also been successful without their help.

The defense commented, “When group messages were released to the media and gained public attention, there was an investigation aimed at constraining Seungri.” Kim In-cheol, who testified earlier, agreed with this sentiment.

In the fourth hearing, a witness identified as Mr. Park testified. Park was described as a long-time friend of Seungri and a member of a business-related chat room of which Seungri, Yoo In-seok, Jung Joon-young and Choi Jong-hoon were also members. Park stated that it was Yoo In-seok who ordered him to send prostitutes to a group of Japanese businessmen and that he had never discussed prostitutes with Seungri. Regarding one of the Japanese businessmen, known as Mr. A, Park revealed that Seungri only asked him to bring flowers and gifts to his hotel room. He also revealed that though he intended to deny Seungri’s involvement during police questioning, they asked him questions implying that Seungri and Yoo In-seok acted together. The questions seemed to be set in advance. Park said he responded with, “It could have been so” to some of these questions. The prosecution also asked questions implying Seungri’s involvement, such as, "How could you not have known that Seungri was mediating sexual services?” According to Park, the prosecution did not listen to his responses even though he revealed everything he knew. At the hearing, Seungri questioned Park directly while expressing disappointment to see his friend of 10-years in a courtroom. He mentioned that he had also been pressured by the police and faced over forty interrogation reports. He emphasized that despite all this, he looked over all the statement reports in detail and wondered why Park didn’t do the same. Park’s response was that he had faced so much psychological pressure during other investigations that he could not focus on the details of Seungri’s case.

Another witness, Ms. F, who also testified for the charge of purchasing prostitution, stated that she carried out prostitution services with a Japanese man at a hotel in Yongsan-Gu, Seoul in December 2015. One of the men was identified as Koji Aoyama, who was said to be an investor in Seungri’s company. Seungri’s lawyer however, denied the assertion that these men were investors, saying that Seungri did not need financial support since he was a well-established singer. They also stated that there was no motive to mediate prostitution for that group.

Yoo In-seok was scheduled to appear as a witness during the fourth hearing, but did not appear.

In the seventh hearing, the court adopted the decision documents from the trials of Yoo In-seok and other individuals as evidence for prostitution mediation and other charges. Two witnesses, Ms. A and Ms. B, testified. Both had previously received suspended sentences for recruiting and arranging prostitutes. Ms. A, a long-time acquaintance of Seungri and Yoo In-seok, was revealed to have asked the other witness, Ms. B, to find a woman. Ms. B then proceeded to supply the women. Ms. A stated that it was Yoo In-seok’s request but he did not say to whom he was sending the women and she did not hear about anyone related to Seungri. She also testified that she received a request from Yoo In-seok, but not Seungri, to send dozens of women to the 2015 Christmas party involving the Japanese group. Regarding the large number of prostitutes that accompanied her to a restaurant in Gangnam, she stated that Seungri may not have known they were prostitutes. She clarified, “That’s because I often hang out with younger women who are not prostitutes. I’ve never had that kind of conversation with Seungri."

Ms. A also addressed transaction records which mentioned Seungri’s name. She stated, “Sometimes I did not receive money from Yoo In-seok, but instead sent my money first and then received it back.” She added, “Whenever Yoo In-seok requested, I would get the money from him. But because I was dealing with Seungri’s acquaintances, I wrote down my own memo to make it easy to remember.” She denied Seungri’s involvement in prostitution mediation, stating, “It was all at Yoo In-seok’s request. I even answered that Seungri had never requested anything, but I kept being asked about ‘Seungri and Yoo In-seok’.” Regarding a statement she made during interrogation about Seungri and Yoo In-seok entertaining prostitutes, she said, “It means that they were together, not that Seungri requested anything.” She also clarified that she had a business relationship with Yoo In-seok while her relationship with Seungri was mostly personal.

The second witness in this hearing, Ms. B, admitted to sending a prostitute to a hotel and a meal to Seungri and Yoo In-seok at the end of 2015. About this particular incident, she stated that she was given no explanation about who requested it or who she was sending it to. She testified that she received money from Yoo In-seok on other occasions when she sent prostitutes to hotels and other places but that she never heard any mention of Seungri. She added that on occasions she arranged prostitutions, all contact was made only with Ms. A, and payment was made by Yoo In-seok. There was no mention of Seungri nor did she receive any payment from him. According to Ms. B, “When I followed the younger ones and Ms. A, I heard Seungri ask ‘What’s mine?’ like a dirty word. I don’t remember exactly what the girl I went with heard me say or if I heard it.” She also stated, “I don’t think it’s important, but because there were women there, I think it was just a joke. And I don’t remember exactly what happened."

In the eleventh hearing, Jung Joon-young testified regarding the prostitution mediation charge, prostitution (use of services) charge, and the aggravated assault charge. He described his relationship with Seungri, “I first met Seungri at a Hong Kong awards ceremony, and I learned about Yoo In-seok through him. I haven’t been in touch with him until recently.” He responded with "I don't know" and "I don't remember" to many of the questions posed. There were also instances of him being confused about his previous statements made during the investigation. The defense also emphasized that the statements made during questioning may not have been accurate. They asked Jung Joon-young about the circumstances of his own prostitution, “When members of the group chatroom (which included Seungri and Yoo In-seok) invited a Japanese millionaire in 2015, they mostly talked about business, but was there no talk about prostitution at all?” Jung Joon-young replied, “There was none."

The prosecution claimed that Seungri used the phrase “Girls who give well” in the eight-member KakaoTalk chat room which also included Jung Joon-young. This conversation was allegedly related to the Christmas party involving overseas businessmen. When asked about this, Jung Joon-young explained, “We were just kind of messing around or having fun." The defense argued that the phrase, “Girls who give well” may not have implied sexual relations but could have referred to women who just liked to play hot. Regarding the issue of who invited prostitutes to the party, Jung acknowledged that it was Yoo In-seok’s order, stating, “Yoo In-seok and I talked a lot about women but I don’t know if Seungri also knew about the prostitutes. I haven’t heard anything about prostitutes that is related to Seungri'."

It was also revealed that Yoo In-seok sent a prostitute to Jung Joon-Young and referred to her as “a gift” in a group chatroom and Jung Joon-young also admitted to using the service. But in the group chat room involving Seungri, the details of this were not included other than the “gift” remarks. When Seungri’s lawyer asked Jung, “Do you know if Seungri was involved in sending prostitutes to you?” Jung replied, “I don’t know.” To this the Court asked, “Everyone knows, but how can Seungri not know?"

In the thirteenth hearing, a woman identified as Ms. C testified about the incident involving Japanese businessmen at the Christmas party in 2015. She stated, “That morning, I got a part-time job offer from a female friend and went to the hotel,” and, “I had absolutely no idea the other man was related to Seungri.” She also stated, “I didn’t know that the person I was meeting was Japanese, and there was no sex. No one even mentioned Seungri at that time.” Referring to another incident where she and Seungri’s group were at a restaurant in Gangnam early the next morning, she said, “There were a lot of people at the scene and I didn’t even know who was who. I was with a man after the drinking party, but I don’t remember seeing him at the restaurant.” Ms. C contested statements in her police questioning reports. One such statement was, “After leaving the restaurant, I was in Seungri’s car for a while.” She clarified, “I never said it was ‘Seungri’s car.' I don’t even know if the car was Seungri’s car. It seems that the police said it was Seungri’s car and wrote it that way.” She also addressed another statement made during questioning, “He seemed to be part of the defendant’s group.” She explained, “I just said that there was one person among many people, and there was a guy who appeared at a restaurant. But since Seungri was also there, the police may have written it as 'the defendant’s group.'" Finally, the defense asked her if Seungri said anything at the scene. She replied, “Seungri didn’t give any instructions, and I never even had a conversation with him."

Following Ms. C’s testimony, the defense drew attention to the fact that many witnesses, including Ms. C, have testified that their statements during questioning were altered by police in the written reports. The defense stated, “At the time of the investigation of the case, discussions on the adjustment of the prosecution’s and police’s investigation rights were held. The National Assembly and The Blue House had to thoroughly investigate and resolve the Burning Sun case, so the police had to do something. But it turns out that the detention warrants for Seungri were rejected twice.” The defense continued, “Because the police needed to deliver results, I think that’s why the investigation was one of pressure rather than necessity, and excessive charges were piled on.” The defense also added, “There are so many witnesses, but how is it that none of their statements are consistent? There seems to be good enough reason to suggest to the court that the police questioning records are different from the actual statements.” The court partially agreed with the lawyer’s statement that there could have been coercion during the police questionings.

Three witnesses were questioned in the fourteenth hearing, bringing the total number of witnesses to twenty-two. The court announced that Choi Jong-hoon, Mr. Kwon and Yoo In-seok were scheduled for future hearings.

One of the witnesses that testified during the fourteenth hearing is another woman, Ms. D, that was called to provide sexual services. According to Ms. D, at the time of the incident, she had initially planned to go to a club with her acquaintance. However, her schedule changed and she went to a Gangnam restaurant instead. She reportedly said, “There were no Japanese, neither was Seungri’s group there. Women arrived at the place first. When I ordered food, women and Japanese groups were scattered, and I remember that a Japanese person sat in the front seat.” She recalled that she had a brief exchange in Japanese with one of the guests, then she moved to a hotel in a large van. After leaving the restaurant, she entered a room with a Japanese individual, had sexual intercourse and received 1.1 million won. After that, she and her female acquaintances took a taxi and each got off at Gangnam. There was a minor difference between her statement in court and the one made during police questioning. In response to a question regarding whether she heard of Seungri providing entertainment in multiple places around Christmas 2015, she replied “I haven’t” in court. However, she was revealed to have said the opposite during questioning. Ms. D hesitated in multiple parts of her testimony and failed to show consistency overall. She also denied saying some things that were recorded in the police records. Though she signed the written reports, she confessed that she may not have verified all the details and that she did not remember everything.

In the seventeenth hearing, three witnesses related to this charge and the aggravated assault charge testified, but no details were revealed.

Yoo In-seok was summoned again as the main witness for prostitution mediation, aggravated assault and other charges in the twenty-second and twenty-third hearings, but failed to appear both times. He cited “business reasons” and being burdened by his own trial as explanations for not appearing. By the end of the trial, after being summoned on three separate occasions, Yoo In-seok did not appear at all. Instead, the court decided to end the witness questioning period by adopting Yoo In-seok’s statements made during the police interrogation as evidence. In his own trial, Yoo In-seok was sentenced to one year and eight months in prison, suspended by three years on charges such as Violation of the Food Sanitation Act, embezzlement and prostitution mediation. At the time, he was undergoing another trial for incitement of aggravated assault.