By Kim Da-ye
The results of an examination of travel documents showed Friday that either a number submitted by the prosecution or those by lawyers for a former Seoul city government official suspected of being a spy for North Korea may have been fabricated.
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office (SPO) said its Digital Forensic Center confirmed the official seals of a Chinese municipal authority stamped on documents submitted by the prosecution and by lawyers of the accused were different.
Thirty-four year old Yoo Woo-sung, who came to South Korea in 2004 as a North Korean defector, was arrested in January last year. He was indicted on espionage charges for allegedly passing the personal information of some 200 defectors he obtained through his job to the North.
A lower court found Yoo not guilty, but the prosecution appealed to a high court, presenting records of his entry to and departure from North Korea as additional evidence. Prosecutors argued that Yoo was a spy because of his multiple trips to North Korea in 2006; while his lawyers argued that he travelled there only once for the funeral of his mother.
Yoo’s travel records are key to the prosecutions’ appeal. The Chinese government, however, recently said that the documents they submitted were fabricated, while those from Yoo’s lawyers were genuine.
While the top prosecutor’s office acknowledged Friday the two have different seals from a Chinese municipal government, it hasn’t concluded that the difference indicates that one set of the documents had been fabricated.
The SPO also subpoenaed and questioned Lee In-chul, a diplomat at the Korean consulate in Sunyang, Friday, who is believed to have played a key role in obtaining the documents. Lee was dispatched to the consulate by the National Intelligence Service (NIS), which initiated the investigation into Yoo.
The possible fabrication of the prosecution’s documents was the central issue in a hearing at the Seoul High Court, Friday.
At the first hearing held since the revelation made by the Chinese government, Yoo’s lawyers argued that the information submitted by the prosecution should not be accepted as evidence.
They demanded that the prosecution clarify their stance on the documents, which it had insisted were obtained with official diplomatic cooperation.
Prosecutors replied that a task force was trying to verify authenticity, and they would wait until results were available.
The lawyers argued for the court to make the hearing the last one, regardless of the authenticity of the documents, while the prosecution asked for more time.
The court decided to hold one more hearing before making a ruling.