Seoul: Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho offered an explanation Monday for the prosecution's controversial decision not to appeal the first trial verdict in the Daejang-dong development case. On his way to work, Jung said, "We determined there was no problem with not filing an appeal" and that he had "advised the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to make a prudent decision considering various factors." He also denied any link to President Lee Jae Myung, stressing that the matter was unrelated. But his account leaves many questions unanswered.

According to Yonhap News Agency, Jung argued that "the court handed down sentences heavier than those sought by prosecutors," calling it "a successful investigation and a successful trial." Yet among the five defendants, only Yoo Dong-gyu and Jung Min-yong received heavier sentences than prosecutors had sought, while Kim Man-bae and Jung Young-hak were sentenced to lighter terms. More crucially, the court applied breach of duty under the Criminal Act rather than the more serious charge of breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. This legal distinction was a central issue that could have been challenged in the appeals process, but Jung did not address it at all.

His reasoning for giving up the appeal - and thereby blocking the recovery of more than 700 billion won in illegal profits - was equally unconvincing. Jung said the government could recover the money "through the civil suits already filed by Seongnam City and the Gyeonggi Housing and Urban Development Corporation." But legal experts note that once defendants are acquitted in a criminal trial, winning a related civil case becomes significantly harder. Given his background as a lawyer, it is difficult to believe Jung is unaware of this.

Jung denied allegations of outside pressure, saying, "I did not order or instruct prosecutors to give up the appeal." He explained that he received two reports from the prosecution, first telling them to "make a careful decision," and later determining that "since the court imposed heavier sentences than requested, there was no legal problem." Still, his claim that he merely offered opinions but did not influence the outcome is hard to accept. His remarks appear to have indirectly steered prosecutors toward dropping the appeal.