Further Manipulation of “Evidence” by Accusers

Further Manipulation of “Evidence” by Accusers

Note: This is an article following the a series of analyses, please see previous articles for a full context. (See previous article here)

After a series of credible sources countering the validity of the only “evidence” given by the accuser (Maple), suddenly the “original” icloud audio recording was deleted by the police and claimed to be unrecoverable. This was only briefly reported in the news and treated without much severity (See article use google translate for english), which wrote “It was confirmed that the victim’s important transcripts were accidentally deleted by the investigator ahead of the courtroom demonstration in the trial of Jung Myeong-seok (78) of the Christian Gospel Mission (aka JMS) on charges of sexual assault against a woman. According to the local legal community on the 17th, the file recorded by victim A (28), a Hong Kong national who first accused Jung Myeong-seok of semi-rape, was deleted from the cloud. It was found that the recorded file was deleted by mistake while the victim’s lawyer attended and the police investigator manipulated the cloud to check whether it was working properly before the court demonstration of the transcript ahead of the trial of the defendant Jeong Myeong-seok at the Daejeon District Court on the 3rd.”

Already, Maple did not have the original audio file recorded on her iphone, claiming that she had sold her iphone. Hence, the next best “original” would have been the file on icloud. Yet, stupendously, the file was “accidentally” deleted unrecoverablly before it was supposed to be forensically examined in greater detail. iPhone and iCloud users would know that it would take deliberate effort with multiple clicks to delete a file from iCloud permanently, given that there is a 30-day recoverable period for all files accidentally deleted. (See video explanation here)

There is little room to believe that this was a genuine mistake. It is reasonable to conclude that it could be a case of deliberate manipulation of “evidence”, while masking the whole accusation with an avalanche of media attacks that blurs truth from repeated lies. Repeated and widely spread lies are not equal to the truth. May God bring the truth to light.

Hero or Zero? Kim Do Hyeong

Hero or Zero? Kim Do Hyeong

A Netflix docuseries In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal was release in March this year painting malicious & one-sided narratives about Christian Gospel Mission (CGM, or Providence) and its founder Pastor Jung Myung Seok. The main informant to the director of the docuseries is Kim Do Hyeong. Since the docuseries release in March this year, Kim Do Hyeong has portrayed himself to be a hero to have uncovered the “secrets”.

Is he truly a hero, or a malicious actor with questionable self-serving intentions? A series of youtube and media coverage have begun questioning the trustworthiness of the main informant Kim, after examining his past criminal convictions, accusations of Pastor Jung, and past notorized confessions. Please see the following articles / videos to form a holistic view.

Kim Do Hyeong’s Credibility Assessment, Past Confessions and Extortions:

  1. PS News Article (Original with English Translation, Archived)
  2. Youtube (Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4) Turn on English Subtitles
https://youtu.be/Fdf4Hd4ybuI?t=142
https://youtu.be/KFlV7tWbgJs?t=458
SSullock & Wassul: Uncovering the truth behind Netflix’s “In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal”

SSullock & Wassul: Uncovering the truth behind Netflix’s “In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal”

Christian Gospel Mission has released an investigative series on YouTube in response to the Netflix docuseries, titled: SSullock & Wassul: Uncovering the truth behind “In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal.” (Drawing inspiration from Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson)

🔸 Content:
The Netflix docuseries In the Name of God: Holy Betrayal released a malicious broadcast about Christian Gospel Mission.

The producers and actors of the Netflix docuseries used a form of storytelling that involves distorting the truth and reconstructing it intentionally. We will explain each of these suspicions and truths within this series.

🔸 English Subtitles are available for Episodes 1-9 (turn on “CC” button and click settings to choose English)

Please see episode 1 in the link below – appreciate your *like* and *subscription*!

Why did Netflix’s In the Name of God about JMS Documentary Came Out?

Why did Netflix’s In the Name of God about JMS Documentary Came Out?

(Original article in Korean)

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the religious organization “S,” that caused the second wave of spread of COVID in South Korea, became an issue. As a result, national resistance to heretical religious groups exploded along with resistance to Christianity. On the internet, I Am Jesus, a parody of I Am a Singer, which was a composite of religious leaders calling themselves “the Second Coming Jesus,” was circulating.

Among them was Pastor Jung Myeong-seok (Christian Gospel Mission, so-called JMS). Why is President Jung Myung-seok, who has lived the life of a “religious/faithful bride of Jesus,” being treated as a “self-proclaiming Second Coming Jesus”? Is it because human nature seeks stimulation? Instead of the Word of God that resolves life’s problems, or wholesome and touching stories, the propagating power of stimulating rumors and criticizing content is much more overpowering. 

This time on Netflix, a documentary called In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal was aired and spread secondary and tertiary content, once again infringing on President Jung Myung-seok and CGM members. Hold on. Here you can just press the “Back” button, saying “Oh, this article was written by a JMS believer” or “You are a cult, so you shouldn’t speak,” but I hope you can read this until the end.

That “perspective” is repeated again

Actually, as a result of checking the main content of the program, I found out that the logic, flow, and information used to attack CGM are the same as before. Mr. K, the key figure of the opposing force who appears directly in the program, has continued to slander CGM with the same narrative since 1999 through SBS’ I Want to Know, MBC’s True Story Expedition in 2020, and JTBC in 2022. In President Jung Myung-seok’s sermon video, he distorted the audio and subtitles from “evangelize one out of ten [yeol-ai-ha-na jeon-do]” to “evangelize one woman [yeo-ja-ha-na joen-do],” and he did not hesitate to use only a portion of an audio recording of President Jeong Myung-seok to make a religious consultation with a [church] member in need sound like a sex crime.

And in 2023, through Netflix’s In the Name of God, using OTT (over-the-top) platform characteristics that are not restricted by broadcasting law, without hesitation, President Myung-seok Jeong and the CGM are portrayed in a sexual and provocative way.

This program is promoted by various media outlets as being objectively and credibly produced. However, it meticulously interprets the path that President Jung Myung-seok walked through one person’s one-sided logic and narrative, which is Mr. K’s. This path, which started with the Word of God that saves lives, is a history that Mr. K has never been a part of. Based on the malicious claims of those who left CGM and the one-sided allegations of the opposition, the broadcast only tarnishes this history as a “history that sexually seduces female believers.” It was done to the extent that I thought it was childish. There was no mention of how God’s words had resolved people’s life issues or how it solved Biblical questions. Instead, Mr. K himself is portrayed as an “apostle of justice who seeks to rescue those who had been harmed by President Jung Myung-seok.”

Video claims and contents: is all of it true?

On February 17th, CGM filed an application for an injunction to ban the broadcast, but the Court rejected it. “For past cases, they have cross-checked various materials such as videos and photos, and the part related to the ongoing criminal trial is in line with the plaintiffs’ statements since they have met and conducted interviews with the plaintiffs, so it is difficult to see them as false,” the Court described.

In the film, Mr. K’s argument, the tearful statements of the accusers, and the presented video and audio recordings of the female believers make people speculate, “President Jung Myung-seok really committed these crimes.” The reenactments also emotionally trigger the general public and induce them to believe that “this really happened.”

But are these allegations and contents true? It is unclear from where these materials were gathered, and whether they were really produced at the site where President Jung Myung-seok had allegedly violated the female believers. In particular, the full version and context should be clearly given for recordings that are offensive and shocking for viewers. Among the statements of the accusers in the actual film, there were many things that could be proven to be absolute lies

In the Name of God may end up as a source of stimulation and entertainment (or discomfort) for the public. However, CGM, which has been quietly preaching the gospel and spreading a sound view of faith, will be undermined, and the damage to its image and members will be severe.

Currently, President Jung Myung-seok is undergoing the first trial, and no decision has been made yet. The process from the prosecution of Ms. M in 2022 to the arrest and trial of President Myung-Seok Jeong was not easy from the standpoint of CGM’s opposition. Although I cannot reveal the specific trial process and the circumstances of the accusers here, there were sufficient grounds to prove that Ms. M’s claims were false. Meanwhile, the accumulated negative public opinion led to the arrest of President Jung Myung-seok. In the Name of God is the culmination of that. The accusers, including Mr. K, appear to be trying to agitate public opinion on a global scale through In the Name of God in order to lead the trial in their favor.

It is often argued that broadcasting should be fair. However, it is difficult to come up with such good broadcasts. This is because the broadcaster’s circumstances, characteristics, and financial logic have no choice but to come into play. In particular, fair broadcasts are no fun. In a reality where few people seek the Word of God, to have content encompassing CGM’s wholesome nature and image that differ from its opposition’s claims would be meaningless from the standpoint of OTT, which pursues profit. In order to make content that sells well to the public, there is no choice but to compose content that is stimulating and R-rated.

In the Name of God is a concoction of CGM opposers who cause trouble for CGM and try to justify themselves by any means beyond logic, Netflix’s pursuit of profit, broadcast producers’ desire to succeed through an OTT platform, and the general attack of Christianity which condemns CGM as heretical. Anyone who consumes content should keep in mind that there will be a certain number of hidden agendas.

[Writing | G. jams ]

* This blog collects organized material on the main issues appearing in Netflix’s In the Name of God.

Some of them can be fully explained, but some have not been made into content due to the safety of CGM members. 

Alleged Rape Victim Confesses to framing President Jung and being coached by Anti-JMS organization

Alleged Rape Victim Confesses to framing President Jung and being coached by Anti-JMS organization

An accused is innocent until proven guilty

It is a cardinal principle of the justice system that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.[1] This principle is necessary to protect the accused’s right to liberty, to be free from incarceration, and his right to a fair trial.[2] On the other hand, there is a need to uphold justice and protect victims. The court balances these competing interests by establishing the rule that an accused person should not be convicted until objective evidence is adduced before the court to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.[3]

In cases involving sexual offences there is often no material evidence or eyewitness evidence. This creates a problem of “he-say she-say”, where it is only the victim’s (usually a ‘she’) word against the accused (usually a ‘he’).[4] Since there is no material evidence, the accused faces a high risk of being wrongly convicted based on the sole subjective testimony of one person. Although there are situations where the accused is truly guilty, there are also situations where the alleged victim is trying to frame the accused for certain ulterior motives. The court has to draw the proper line to balance between these two situations. Hence, in such “he-say she-say” situations, the court should only find the accused guilty only if the victim’s testimony is sufficiently clear and convincing such that the court is persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim’s version of events is true, and that the accused’s version of events is false.[5]

The court ought to assess factors such as whether the victim’s testimony is consistent with external evidence, whether the victim’s testimony is internally consistent, whether the victim has shown a candid demeanour, and such other related factors. The court should not convict an accused solely based on a victim’s testimony if the victim is found to be an untruthful witness, if the victim’s testimony is internally inconsistent, or if the victim’s testimony contradicts other external evidence or other third-party testimony.[6]

The beginning of allegations against President Jung

The he-say she-say problem arose when President Jung was arrested in 2007 in China by the Chinese police and investigated for allegedly raping one Ms Jang and one Ms Kim, amongst others. Jang and Kim alleged that he raped them in Ansan City (China) between 2 April to 3 April 2006. However, there was completely no material evidence to support their claims. Despite this, the Chinese police locked President Jung up for a total of 10 months, subjecting him to significant psychological and physical torture, attempting to force a false confession out of him. During those 10 months, he was prevented any contact from the external world, and members of the Christian Gospel Mission (CGM) did not even know if President Jung was still alive.

President Jung declared innocent by Chinese police

However, after 10 months, President Jung was released by the police who told him that there was no evidence of any of the rape allegations, that the allegations had likely been fabricated, and that he was free to go.

At that point, President Jung could have remained in China, or gone to another country, but out of love for his nation and his people, he chose to return to his homeland, Korea.

Korea unwilling to accept China’s decision

Regrettably, Korea was unwilling to accept the decision of the Chinese police and decided to re-investigate the case. President Jung was once again arrested, and faced charges of raping Kim and Jang, amongst other charges. Jang and Kim claimed that:[7]

  • Around 29 March 2006, Jang, Kim, and some other members of the Christian Gospel Mission (CGM), went to Ansan City (China) where President Jung was residing, to put up a taekwondo demonstration.
  • It was alleged that around 4pm on 2 April 2006, President Jung brought Jang and two other Korean females (not including Kim) from the taekwondo team to the bathroom in the basement of his accommodations, raped them in turn, then grabbed the shower hose (with the front portion detached), turned the water on, and inserted the hose into the vagina of Jang and poked about, causing her to suffer from internal vaginal bleeding discharge injury, anxiety order and other harms.
  • [8] between 4am to 6am, President Jung brought Kim to the bathroom in his accommodation, undressed her, turned on the hot water and inserted the hose with the showerhead detached, together with his fingers, into her vagina. He then soaped his penis and her vagina and raped her. Kim claimed that her hymen and internal part of her vagina were ruptured and bleeding, and that her belly was so filled to the brim with air that she could not walk.[9]
  • It was alleged that that morning, Kim told Jang about what happened, and she and Jang then decided to escape from the place. They took a taxi to the airport, where Kim called her mother and said “I was raped. Please save me”.

Jang confesses to lying and framing President Jung

Consistent with what he had done in China, President Jung maintained that he was innocent of these false accusations. The case hence went to trial. Midway through the trial, on 10 June 2008, Jang appeared in the courtroom to testify. Amongst other things, she confessed that:

  • She had not been raped.
  • She had lied to the investigation agency, according to what Kim told her to say.
  • She had falsely accused President Jung.
  • She did not voluntarily file the complaint.
  • Kim had told her several times that Kim had also not been raped.
  • Kim Do Hyung, the representative of Exodus (an anti-JMS organisation), and Kim, had made her stay in a one-room apartment where they coached her on what to say and how to act during the press conference and investigations, and did not allow her to leave the apartment apart from mealtimes or contact others.
  • She was sorry to President Jung.

Here are the relevant excerpts of her testimony in the courtroom, taken from the trial evidence notes of 10 June 2008 (Korean Original with English Translation PDF):

Questions by the Prosecution
Q: Did you, the witness, state the truth in the investigation agency? A: No. Q: Is this how you testified? A: This is how I testified, but it is not the truth. Q: After confirming that it was written as you stated, you signed and sealed it, right? A: I read it, but it is not the truth. Q: It is correct that you, the witness, filed the charge voluntarily? A: No. Q: So, are you saying that you haven’t suffered such damage? A: Yes, I have not.
Q: Is it true that you had heard from the JMS believer, Kim Ji Oon (this is a different Kim), words such as: “can Teacher insert his fingers into your vagina? Can you go to the God’s room and take of all your clothes? Pluck off all your vaginal hair”. A: I never heard these. Q: Didn’t you testify like this in the investigation agency? A: I do not remember well. At that time, Kim told me to testify like that, that is why I simply testified according to what Kim told me.
 (The witness’ photo exhibited at pages 13 to 14 of the investigation record) Q: Is this your photo? A: Yes. However, it is not a photo I took because I wanted, and the injury in the photo is not an injury caused because of that (alleged) incident. Q: In that case, how did you get injured? A: It was an injury I obtained before going to China when my taekwondo department was practicing for a long period of time in Cheonan, Kim had always liked aggressive exercises and as I was Kim’s only practice counterpart we continually exercised together and during the process of tumbling I got injured. Q: In that case you are saying that you got injured during taekwondo practice? A: Yes. Q: In that case, why take that photo? A: It was taken by Kim. Q: In that case, she could have just taken her own photo, why also take your photo? A: She said to me to file a complaint together with her. Q: In that case aren’t you agreeing to file a false complaint? A: At that time, I did not want to do that, but because I was young, so when Kim who was (8 to 9 years) older than me said that, I just followed. Q: Because you are young, you didn’t even have that degree of discernment? A: I don’t know well, at that time, because Kim pressurized me, I had no choice. Q: Did Kim keep you captive, restrain you or use violence or intimidation on you? A: No matter what I said, Kim kept nudging and poking me from the side and said don’t do that. Q: Do you see this photo of your panties? A: Yes. Q: How come there is blood discharge there? A: At that time I was menstruating. Q: According to the testimony of the interpreter, Kim Nam Hee, you had started menstruating when you were being investigated at the Chinese police. But isn’t this photo before the investigation began? A: I had been menstruating for a period of time. Q: Wh­en did you start menstruating? A: It­­ had started before I went to the (China) airport.
Q: You told the Chinese police that you had been raped? A: I had said this together with Kim, but I had actually not wanted to say this. Q: Then what was your intention? A: At that time, I had not slept even a wink at the motel near to the China airport, and in that state, whatever Kim had told me to say, I just repeated accordingly. Q: What did Kim tell you at the motel? A: She said let’s file a complaint against the accused, Jung Myung Seok, together. Q: Kim instructed you to say this and this? A: Yes. Q: Even so, you testified to the Chinese police something that didn’t even exist? A: I had not wanted to testify like this. Q: Then why did you do so? A: Kim kept nudging and prodding me from the side and told me to just believe and follow what she said.
Q: Is it true that at the hospital, you were laughing and talking together with Kim, and having a good time together? A: Yes, I was laughing and talking together with her. Q: As persons who had gone to the hospital because of body pain, were you both in a mental state to talk and laugh?  Even supposing all that (the body pain) was just a pretense, you and Kim would have had to let other people believe that you were really in pain, but if you smiled and talked, how would they believe you? A: Kim didn’t think that far ahead, since Kim laughed, I followed and laughed too.  
Q: Until now I have been asking you about the facts in your complaint, therefore, are you confessing that you have lodged a false complaint? If you lodge a false complaint, you can be punished for perjury, did you not know this? A: My heart has been very frustrated because of this therefore I cancelled the complaint. Q: Is it correct that you cancelled the complaint? A: Yes, because I wanted to, I cancelled it. Q: If what you say is true, and if the complaint was false, then the accused Jung Myung Seok has been very wrongfully imprisoned, isn’t it? A: Yes. That is why my heart feels nothing but apologetic.  
Questions by lawyer, Jung Ik Woo

Q: If you look at the investigation record, a complaint sheet was tendered with yours and Kim’s name, was that complaint written? A: Yes it was written, but not because I wanted. Q: If that is the case, who wrote that? A: I wrote it because Kim told me to write it.  
Q: Who wrote this explanation? A: Kim wrote it. Q: Is it correct that Kim wrote it? A:  It seems that this was written based on what Kim said, as for who wrote it I am not sure, but these were not my words.
Q: Kim’s mother greatly disliked the accused Jung Myung Seok and the Christian Gospel Mission, do you know this? A: Yes Kim has told me this before.
Q: You lodged a complaint and were investigated at Mapo police station? A: Yes. Q: At that time, Kim and her mother were also seated and received the investigation together? A: Kim and her mother were there too. Q: At that time, was Kim’s mother by the side interfering and persuading you to speak about the complained incident? A:  More than Kim’s mother, Kim did that to me.
 Q: Is it true that you lived with Kim together in a one-room apartment in Shin-lim-dong? A: Yes. Q: Who paid the rent for the apartment? A: Exodus (an anti-CGM organization) paid it. Q: Did Exodus also pay for meals? A: Yes. Q: During this period of living together, did they (Exodus) prevent you from contacting outside persons? A: Yes. At that time, Kim said not to contact others, even my mother, as much as possible, and she also said that she would also not contact others. And she also said not to inform (anyone) where I was. Q: Was it people from Exodus or was it Kim who said that? A: I came to hear it as the two of them were talking. Q: During the camp, did Kim Do Hyung and Kim talk to you and teach you what to testify and how to act during the press conference and investigations?   A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us whatever you remember of what they said? A: I cannot remember the details, but Kim told me to see what she says and to follow accordingly. Q: During the time of lodging together, did you tell them that this was not the truth, but Kim told you that “since this has already happened, just do according to what I order you and lets push forward just like what we had said previously”? A: Yes. Kim said things like this to me. Q: During the time of lodging together, did you want to leave, and were frustrated and stressed? A: Yes. When I was there, I received a lot of stress. Q: How long were you at the Shin-lim-dong accommodations before you left? A: It was about one month. Q: Were you together with Kim even after you left that place? A: After about one month, I said that I wanted to see my mother, and that my mother was feeling very unwell so I had to go home. At that time, Kim and Kim Do Hyung had a discussion and then said let’s go together, and we went together to my house.
Q: In that case, you were together with Kim at your house? A: Yes. Q: Do you remember what kind of conversations you had with Kim during the time you were together at your house in Yong-dong? A: I didn’t converse with Kim about anything in particular. Kim spent the time at my house exercising, reading and studying. Q: If that is the case, why did Kim have to continually stay with you? A: I don’t know. She prevented me from receiving incoming calls, and even though I said that I really wanted to meet people, she made it such that I couldn’t meet them, and was looking over me from the side.
Questions by lawyer, Lee Yeon Rang.

Q: You were together with Kim for quite a long while in China and from hearing your testimony today, you say that you lodged together with Kim even in Korea too, did Kim really say that she had been raped by the accused Jung Myung Seok, or did she say that actually she had not been raped? A: After returning to Korea, maybe in Shin-lim-dong, or if not maybe before that, and also sometime once when I went to Kim’s house to play, Kim whispered to me that actually she had not been raped, and at that time I was shocked. Q: Did she say this often? A: She said this frequently, and while telling me not to misunderstand, she said that she had not been raped.
 Q: Did the people you met from Exodus say to you that they will receive huge compensation sum and give it to you? A: More than me, it was usually Kim who spoke to the Exodus people. Q: What did Kim do for the one month that you were in Shin-lim-dong? A: Kim Do Hyung from Exodus and Kim told me “rest, something will happen to JMS”. Q: They locked you up and while showing you and Kim the Exodus website, made you receive education right? A: Kim told me to watch together with her and frequently opened the Exodus website to see.
Q: Before going to China, when practicing and lodging with Kim in Cheonan, Kim taught you the new self-defense techniques that she had newly familiarized with, such as neck choking, right? A: Kim always followed what the guys did, and since her first practice partner was always me, I got a lot of bruises and body ache. Q: Kim is very aggressive? A: Yes. She is very much like that. Q: Kim also demonstrated very impressive backflips, right? A: She was very good. Q: Even after arriving in China, you and Kim were the representatives of the Taekwondo Department to demonstrate self-defense techniques in front of the accused, Jung Myung Seok, and others, and practiced fervently for this demonstration, right? A: Yes.
Q: Looking at the 7 April 2006 treatment records of Kim at the police hospital after she returned to Korea, at that time, her hymen was still intact and it was difficult to believe her statement that she had sexual relations with the accused Jung Myung Seok. You said that in truth, Kim had never had sexual relations with the accused Jung Myung Seok, right? A: Yes. Kim said this to me directly.
Questions by lawyer, Ham Gui Yong

Q: You said that you received a lot of stress when you were lodging in Shin-lim-dong for a month. Was the reason because you were so-called imprisoned there and not allowed to have external contact? Or because of what happened in China? A: Kim excessively/ overbearingly prevented me from making external contact and said that apart from mealtimes, let’s not go out. Because that place was a one-room apartment, if we raise our voice even slightly, the people in the adjacent apartment can hear it.
 Q: If you look at the photo you saw earlier, there is a photo of Kim with her stomach protruding, did you take that? A: I didn’t know that Kim’s stomach was pain. Q: I tried an experiment and ate a lot for dinner, and took a photo after choosing a good angle and while sticking out my stomach, and looking at the photo, my stomach seems as if protruding. With what method was Kim’s photo taken? A: We returned to the accommodations immediately after dinner and took the photo. Q: Such photo can be taken by sticking out the body part and choosing a good angle. So how was this taken? A: No special angle was used, but Kim stuck out her stomach and took the photo. Q: After the dawn of 3 April, was Kim’s belly protruding? A: She drinks a lot of water.
Q: According to your testimony today, you had lied to the investigation agency and you feel very uncomfortable and anxious because of lying throughout this time, right? A: I really like people but because of one person, Kim, it is regrettable that things turned out like this.
Closing questions by Prosecution

Prosecutor To witness   Q: You, the witness, admitted that you committed the crime of falsely accusing the accused, Jung Myung Seok, right? A: I would like to say that I am sorry. Q: In that case, you accept that you will bear the punishment for that, right? A: Yes.   Judge   Notice of decision to lift the disclosure restriction.   2008.6.10. Court Chief OOO Chief Judge OOO

Decision by the Seoul Central Local Court

As a result of Jang’s confession to lying and falsely incriminating President Jung, Jang’s charges were withdrawn by the Prosecution.[10] This means that President Jung was acquitted of all charges pertaining to Jang.

Furthermore, the Seoul Central Local Court found that Kim had exaggerated the contents of her testimony, and acquitted President Jung of rape causing bodily hurt to Kim.[11] In other words, the judge had decided that Kim had lied:

그런데 증인 송철호, 김남희 등의 법정진술, 의무기록 사본의 기재, 대한 의사 협회장의 2008년 6월 27일 사실 조회 회신 및 경찰 병원장의 2008년 5월 19일 자 사실 조회 회신 중 김XX에 관한 부분의 각 기재에 의하면 인정되는 아래와 같은 사정에 비추어 위 1)항 증거들 중 피해자 김XX 진술은 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵고 피고인의 판시 제 4항과 같은 행위로 피해자가 질 내 파열상, 외상 후 스트레스 장애등의 상해를 입었다고 단정하기에는 부족하다.However, the court testimony of witnesses such as Song Chul Ho and Kim Nam Hee, the medical record copies, the segments relating to Kim in the Korea Medical Association President’s reply to factual inquiries on 27 June 2008 and the police’s hospital director’s reply to factual inquiries on 19 May 2008 affirm the circumstances as set out below. In light of these circumstances (set out below), it is difficult to simply believe the testimony of Kim as set out above in the 1) section, and there is insufficiency (of evidence) to prove that the accused, through actions set out in paragraph 4 of the judgment, had caused the victim to have internal vagina rupture injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.
피해자가 가해 내용을 과장하기 위해 배가 불룩하게 나온 것이 피고인의 행위로 인한 것이라고 진술할 것으로 보인다.In light of such circumstances, it seems that the victim had testified that her belly bloatedness was caused by the accused’s actions, in order to exaggerate the contents of her victimization.

These are the reasons why the judge decided that Kim was exaggerating (which is in effect saying that she had lied):[12]

  • Kim’s examining doctor testified, and the pertaining medical records showed, that she did not suffer such injuries. According to the medical records of the police hospital where the victim received treatment around 14:00 on 8 April 2006 (five days after she was allegedly raped), Kim received a uterus examination but it was recorded that there were no particular opinions of injuries to the uterus, cervix, vulva, hymen or such body parts. Doctor Song Chul Ho who treated the victim testified that if there had been an injury, it would have been known, stated and recorded in the medical records. According to the police hospital director’s reply to factual inquiries on 19 May 2008, in the section relating to Kim, if she had indeed suffered from large amounts of bleeding, it is difficult for her internally ruptured vagina to heal within 5 days leaving no trace whatsoever.
  • Medical experts testified that it was not likely for water to inflate her belly. The victim testified that water was inserted through her vagina and her belly became bloated. However, according to the records relating to Kim in the 19 May 2008 police hospital director’s reply to factual inquiries, in the situation where water is inserted through the vagina using a showerhead, only an extremely small amount of water would end up in the abdomen. According to the records pertaining to Kim in the 27 June 2008 Korea Medical Association President’s reply to factual inquiries, where water is inserted through the vagina, it is generally not an expected situation for the water to enter the uterus or the abdomen. According to the medical records of the police hospital, it is recorded that the victim had suspected symptoms of diarrhoea and acute gastroenteritis. Further, according to the records pertaining to Kim in the 19 May 2008 police hospital director’s reply to factual inquiries, the abdomen could have been inflated due to the diarrhoea and acute gastroenteritis. In light of such circumstances, it seems that the victim had testified that her belly bloatedness was caused by the accused’s actions, in order to exaggerate the contents of her victimization.
  • The prosecution chose to withhold her diagnosis reports. The victim testified to the police that she was hospitalized due to the mental shock that she received from this case, and had even submitted the diagnosis report. However, the prosecution did not apply for the diagnosis report to be admitted as evidence for this case, and also did not submit it. The victim also said that she would submit another different diagnosis report. However, the prosecution also did not apply to submit this as evidence. If the victim had hospital reports that supported her claim, it does not seem likely that the prosecution would not submit it as objective evidence.
  • The blood on her panties could be due to menstruation. The victim showed a photo of blood on her panties and argued that this was caused by her internal vaginal injury. However, Kim Nam Hee, the translator in charge at the time when the victim was being investigated at the China airport and when she was receiving treatment at the hospital, testified that during the process of translation, she had heard the victim say that she was in menstruation.

However, the judge went on to make a contradictory decision. On one hand, although the judge had explicitly stated that Kim’s testimony had been exaggerated (which in effect means that she had lied), the judge went on to say that Kim’s testimony was credible.

위와 같이 피해자 김XX이 일관되게 피해 내용을 매우 구체적으로 진술하고 있고 그 내용은 당시의 상황을 직접 경험한 사람이 아니면 진술하기 어려운 내용이며 피해를 당한 이후 피해자의 행적이나 기타 법정에서의 진술 태도나 모습 등에서도 특별히 부자연스러운 면이 없다.  Similar to the above, the victim Kim’s testimony was consistent and very detailed regarding the victimization, and it would be difficult for a person who did not directly experience that situation to testify such content. There is also nothing particularly unnatural about the victim’s behaviour after the victimization and the victim’s attitude or appearance whilst testifying in court, amongst others.  

As a result, the judge convicted President Jung of raping Kim (without bodily hurt), even though Jang had already testified in the courtroom that Kim had told Jang that Kim had never been raped.[13]

Decision by the Seoul High Court

On appeal, the Korean High Court confirmed that “there is no worthy evidence to affirm that the victim suffered from internal vaginal rupture or post-traumatic stress disorder as stated in the charge”, and acquitted President Jung of rape causing bodily injury to Kim.

However, the Korean High Court confirmed that President Jung was guilty of raping Kim.

Decision by the the Seoul Supreme Court

The Seoul Supreme Court confirmed these decisions.

The injustice suffered by President Jung

The judge should not have convicted President Jung primarily based on Kim’s verbal testimony, with no other corroborating witness evidence, and no material evidence.

The witnesses do not support the charge. According to the original version of Kim and Jang, there were multiple victims who had been raped during the same period in Ansan. Hence, it is strange why only Kim and Jang came forth to bring charges against President Jung, while the other alleged victims at Ansan never came forth to bring charges. Eventually, there were only three witnesses regarding the Ansan events, Kim, Jang, and President Jung. Two out of three, President Jung and Jang, both testified that these events never happened. Notably, Jang had confessed, at the risk of being charged with perjury, that she had actually been lying and falsely incriminating President Jung. If Jang had truly been a victim of rape, there was no good reason she would make such a confession to save her rapist, at risk of landing herself in jail. Jang also testified in the courtroom that Kim and Kim Do Hyung had brought her to an Exodus camp to coach her about what to say and act during the investigations. All this supports that the charges had been orchestrated by a mastermind, Kim Do Hyung, who was part of the anti-JMS organisation, Exodus. Ultimately, the only witness testimony was that of Kim.

Unfortunately, the judge believed Kim’s testimony, which was not credible and should not have been believed.[14] There were many problems with Kim’s testimony:

  • The local court judge himself found that Kim had been exaggerating, and disbelieved Kim that she had suffered the alleged medical injuries.[15] He acquitted President Jung of rape causing bodily injury, explaining that the objective evidence showing that Kim did not suffer those bodily injuries. Since the evidence showed that Kim was lying in respect of those injuries, the judge should also have considered that she was also lying about the rape.
  • Kim’s testimony was directly contradicted by Jang. Kim claimed that she had told Jang about the rape and that they had escaped from President Jung’s accommodations together. However, Jang testified in court that Kim had confessed to her that Kim was never raped or assaulted.[16]
  • Kim’s testimony contradicted her statement to the Chinese police. The recorded transcript of the statement made by Kim to the Chinese police showed that Kim had testified that President Jung’s penis did not enter her vagina, and Kim had said that only his finger entered her vagina.[17] This is of tremendous importance as it is contemporaneous evidence given in China shortly after the alleged rape, about the key question of whether his penis entered her vagina (which is necessary to prove rape). The judge knew of this transcript. However, he chose to believe Kim’s lame explanation at trial that she had told the Chinese police “the accused’s penis did not perfectly enter my vagina”, which was why they recorded it that way. However, it is not understandable what is the difference between “perfectly” entering the vagina and “imperfectly” entering the vagina. It either entered the vagina or it did not. Kim’s explanation is not believable. In any case, even if she had said that to the Chinese police, the Chinese police should have recorded that it did not perfectly enter her vagina. Instead, they recorded that only his finger entered her vagina. The Chinese record hence contradicts Kim’s testimony at trial, suggesting that she had fabricated the rape allegations only later on.
  • It is strange why Kim’s mother was not called to testify although Kim said that she called her mother in China to tell her about the rape. There was lack of corroboration of Kim’s evidence.
  • The judge observed that “the victim can be seen to be smiling in a video taken on the day that the victim ran away from the accused’s accommodations”.[18] Such behaviour is not consistent with someone who had been raped a few hours ago. The judge did not sufficiently consider this point.
  • The judge also accepted that Kim had received help from Exodus during the process of lodging the case and testifying about the victimization.[19] This supports Jang’s evidence that Kim was in cahoots with Exodus to coach Jang what to say during investigation and trial, to frame President Jung.
  • It is not logical that a youthful and strong Taekwondo black-belt holder like Kim would allow herself to be victimized in the way she described by an elderly man almost twice her age, when a roundhouse kick to his head would likely have made him unconscious.

Not only was Kim’s evidence insufficient, but there was also strong evidence showing that President Jung was framed by Exodus:

  • In a recorded conversation, the representative of Exodus said that if President Jung were to give him 2 billion won, he could drop all charges:
Q: Yes. How much, how much do we want.   Kim Do Hyung: The amount that I and Jeong Jin Hee mentioned at that time was 2 billion won.   Q: How much?   Kim Do Hyung: 2 billion
  • Jang testified in the courtroom that Kim had told her that Kim had not been raped, and that it was Kim and Kim Do Hyung of Exodus who coached her what to say and how to act during investigations, and that she did not bring the claim voluntarily. There is no good reason why she would put herself at risk of being charged just to protect her rapist. Her testimony should be seen as more credible than Kim’s.
  • The judge acknowledged that Kim had received help from Exodus during the process of lodging the case and testifying about the victimization.[20]

Conclusion

Wisdom is to judge and discern by looking at both sides and to judge and discern by looking at all the evidence and factors in totality. If we are obsessed with only one person’s subjective view point or one piece of the puzzle, we fail to appreciate the truth that is formed by putting all the pieces of the puzzle together.

Assessing this case holistically, there is a strong possibility that Kim had been lying, and that she had conspired to frame President Jung. There was a reasonable doubt as to President Jung’s innocence, and he should have been declared innocent.

The famous adage goes: history always repeats itself. More than four thousand years ago, a righteous man of God, Joseph, was framed for the alleged rape of his master’s wife and thrown in prison for more than a decade. But God loved and protected him, ultimately blessed him, and used him to save his people from the severe 7-year famine. In the same way, President Jung, a righteous man of God, was framed and bore the cross for sharing the words of God and saving lives. Despite all this, God has protected him through the ten years of the cross and today, he has fulfilled an even greater history of God.


[1] Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (uscourts.gov)

[2] Innocent until proven guilty? | Fair Trials

[3] Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (uscourts.gov)

[4] He Said/She Said, Save Our Sons, and the Stories that Stick: | Sherry F. Colb | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

[5] The Requirement of Corroboration in Prosecutions for Sex Offenses in New York (fordham.edu)

[6] The Requirement of Corroboration in Prosecutions for Sex Offenses in New York (fordham.edu)

[7] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the section of dismissed charges

[8] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the section of facts relating to the rape of Kim and under the “not guilty” section

[9] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section under the charge of causing bodily injury by rape to Kim

[10] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the section of dismissed charges

[11] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section for causing bodily injury by rape to Kim

[12] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section for causing bodily injury by rape to Kim

[13] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section pertaining to Kim’s rape charge

[14] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section pertaining to Kim’s rape charge

[15] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section under the charge of causing bodily injury by rape to Kim

[16] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section pertaining to Kim’s rape charge

[17] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section pertaining to Kim’s rape charge

[18] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section pertaining to Kim’s rape charge

[19] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section pertaining to Kim’s rape charge

[20] Judgment 2008/225 of the Seoul Central Local Court, proclaimed on 12 August 2008, under the “judgment” section pertaining to Kim’s rape charge

Peter Daley – An “Expert” on Cults?

Peter Daley – An “Expert” on Cults?

I am a middle aged married man living in USA. I have seen Peter Daley’s website and some of the videos he put up. Instead of being confused, I found what he has put up to be very distasteful, offensive, out of context, and often fabricated. With the whole issue of fake news these days following President Trump’s elections, I think people can appreciate how fake news can be more sensationalistic and popular that the real news. I will use a video that Daley created, and explain from my perspective of what it reveals about Daley and his credibility.

Media Accusations taken as “the truth”

Daley starts by presenting the various media releases that talk about Pastor Jung Myung Seok’s Continue reading

Providence Religious Movement’s “Evergreens” – Media published fabrications

Providence Religious Movement’s “Evergreens” – Media published fabrications

Evergreen tree in Wolmyeongdong

Tabloid newspapers in South Korea have published untruthful comments about women in Providence Religious Movement, known as ‘evergreens’. These tabloids claimed that ‘evergreens’ are ‘500 to 1000 women groomed for sexual exploitation by Jung Myung Seok’ , ‘sex bribes,’ and ‘sexual favors’. These tabloids made no attempt to verify those allegations, before publishing them.

 

False Reports causing public contempt

There are no, and has never been any evidence or proof of, ‘sex bribes’, ‘sexual favors’ or ‘sexual exploitations’ ever occurring. A few individuals fabricated these claims. The false claims were made so that the media would publish, and thus, generate public contempt for Jung Myung Seok and Providence religious movement. These claims are no more than tabloid gossip. Such claims especially contradict the fundamental tenet of Providence–abstaining from sexual immorality.

Continue reading

Jung Myung Seok Cases Dismissed Without Charge

Jung Myung Seok Cases Dismissed Without Charge

Jeong Gyeong News Article (Korea’s equivalent of The Economist Magazine): “All Previous Cases Related to JMS Religious Organization’s Founder, Jung Myung Seok, Dismissed Without Charge.”

The following is an article on Jung Myung Seok from a news magazine titled, “Sincerity moves the heart of Heaven; Truth will eventually surface.”

From January of last year, the case involving the religious organization referred to as JMS (Official name: Christian Gospel Mission) attracted a lot of attention through the media and the case finally concluded at the end of October.

Some of the people related to the case were acquitted by the court after investigation. Hereby, the founder, Jung Myung Seok, was cleared from all accusations and Continue reading

Despite Tribulations & Persecutions

Despite Tribulations & Persecutions

The Earliest Persecutions of Christianity

2,000 years ago Christianity was considered nothing more than a “sect” of Judaism referred to in Paul’s day as “The Way.” But Jesus’ apostles boldly testified for Jesus despite the many negative rumors that had spread about them. They began in Jerusalem but quickly spread as far as Europe and Asia. St. Andrew carried the gospel as far as Scythia (Ukraine and southern Russia) and was crucified in Achaia (southern Greece). Phillip evangelized as far as modern day Turkey and Asia minor before being martyred there at Hieropolis. Simon (the Zealot) went as far as North Africa and Persia (Assyriean empire which is modern day Iraq) where he was killed along Continue reading

Christians on Trial: Pastor Joshua Jeong Myung Seok

Christians on Trial: Pastor Joshua Jeong Myung Seok

Pastor Joshua Jeong Myung Seok is one of the most publicized Christians in Asia. He founded Providence Church which quickly became one of the fastest growing churches of the 20th century. The church has grown fastest in Korea (known as Sumni Church) and in Japan (known as Setsuri church). The church has grown to 50 nations and continues to spread through the world.

But in May 2007 while in China [where Christianity is illegal] he was arrested and thrown into prison. While he was suffering the inhumane conditions of the Chinese prison, accusations against him spread throughout public broadcasts. The church was labeled a cult in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan and members of the church all over the world began experiencing extreme persecution from friends, family, and each by their own nation.

After a year of imprisonment and interrogations China found him innocent of all charges and released him. Before his release he was asked if he would like to stay in China or face charges in Korea. He chose to go to trial, but his trial was far from fair. To hear first hand accounts of the trial and the final decision read the full article,

Christians on Trial: Pastor Joshua Jeong Myung Seok

Christians on Trial: Pastor Joshua Jeong Myung Seok