Unbowed Page #8

Hello?

Okay.

I'll take good care of the kids.

Okay, I really appreciate it!

What a relief.

for a second I

was worried

I'd have to take care of PARK Jun.

THE 6th APPEAL - CROSSBOW CASE

APRIL 4th, 2008

Your Honor, why won't you permit

recordings in this court?

There are no grounds

in the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is stated in Article 30 of the

Ru1es of Criminal Procedure.

Rules of Procedures cannot have

priority over Procedure Acts.

According to Criminal Procedure

Acts, all circumstances are ruled

to be accepted unless there is

a 'special circumstance'!

But here we have

a special circumstance!

Why did you distribute

the trial records on the internet?

Court stenography is necessary

for filing trial records and

should not be publicized.

But you prohibited all court

recordings and left us to

deal with a mere 3-page

statement of the 4th trial.

There's no way of knowing

what was exchanged at the trial!

If you look close, you'll know.

Not really!

Crucial information was omitted.

Defense motions for a recording.

Motion dismissed.

What kind of quack trial

is this?!

Remove that woman

from this court immediately!

Let me go!

Let go!

All quiet!

Your Honor!

You call this a trial?

This is tyranny!

Other notorious judges

of the original trial,

Judges KIM Sunoh or LEE Taewoo

weren't like this?

Officer!

I motion to challenge

the bench?

Great.

Professor, be strong!

Hang in there, professor!

You're wonderfu1!

Order in the courtroom!

Honey, you did well.

That's how you should be.

You've grown son.

Dad Be strong.

Your Honor, I motion for permission

to withdraw appearance.

Motion denied.

- Proceed with the trial.

- The trial cannot proceed!

This case cannot proceed

without a Defense Counsel?

This is a case that clearly

requires proper Defense!

The court is in recess.

It will resume in 30 minutes.

They won't be able to resume

without a Defense Counsel.

They hired a State-appointed one.

In any case, they are trying to

end this trial today.

Court resumes.

I will represent the accused.

Then the State-appointed Defense

Counsel shall be cancelled.

The Defense cannot end things

like this.

As you never responded

Then we'll just listen

to the elucidation.

As per the accuser's request,

three matters were requested

to the Prosecution for elucidation.

Prosecution, please elucidate.

We will start the elucidation.

Firstly, the crossbow and arrows

have not been voluntarily

presented by the accused.

Secondly, where this broken

arrow is now

no one knows.

Thirdly, why there are no bloodstains

on the victim's shirt,

I truly have no idea.

So that means there's no proof?

What the hell's going on?

Order in the court!

I hereby close all examinations.

But you can't end

cross-examinations, your Honor.

You should determine the validity

of the Prosecution's elucidation?

Why are there no bloodstains

on the victim's shirt?

Is this blood actually

the victim's?

And was the wound

inflicted by a crossbow?

These points should be clarified,

don't you agree?

But the Prosecution clearly

stated they have no idea!

Then dismiss all evidence

presented by the Prosecution.

The bench will determine the

validity of circumstances.

Then Defense will help determine

the validity of circumstances.

The Defense motions to summon

PARK Bongju back to the stand

as well as motion for

a bloodstain verification.

Dismissed on the grounds that

they've already been dismissed.

But you must accept,

your Honor!

Defense Counsel.

Explain what accusation

the accused is admitting to.

Are you saying that he had

no intention of harming the victim?

No need to determine intentions

as there was no injury.

Then do you admit that

the accused went to

Judge PARK's place?

The Defense admits that

this is true.

- Did he have a bow and arrow with him?

- He did, your Honor.

- And it was loaded, correct?

- That is correct, your Honor.

- Did the accused shoot the victim?

- But it was accidental, your Honor.

Did the arrow penetrate

the victim's abdomen?

No it didn't, your Honor!

The accused admits it was wrong

to threaten him with a crossbow.

But the shooting was

accidental!

Then do you admit the arrow

shot by the accused

penetrated the victim's clothes?

Not at all, your Honor!

Are you claiming PARK's wound

and the hole in his clothes are

irrelevant to the arrow

shot at him?

They are absolutely irrelevant,

your Honor!

What about the bloodstains

on the victim's underclothes?

That is why we are motioning for

bloodstain verification.

Why are you asking when you

already dismissed this motion?

With this, I conclude

all examinations.

Your Honor! You shou1d\code(01f9)tend

the trial like this!

I seriously advise order in the court!

Order in the court!

Look, your Honor!

How can you run a court like this!

You call this a trial?

Arrest him.

Did you go through

all that trouble

to pass the bar

just to run a f***ed up court?

Arrest that man as well.

Do you all wish to be arrested

for disorder in the courtroom?

Disorder in the courtroom?

The only one who's causing

disorder in the courtroom is you!

You a**holes?

I could've done a better job

than you!

Guard!

from now on, anyone who

throws objects will be arrested.

Prosecution, how does

the State sentence this trial?

Prosecutor SHIM Junbok!

Sir?

What say you?

The State maintains the sentence

as ruled during the original trial.

We call for a ten year sentence.

Counsel,

what's your final argument?

Counsel, aren't you going to

give your final argument?

I have given you your chance,

but if you wish to relinquish

this right of yours, so be it.

Your Honor, I would like to

present my final argument.

The Defense clearly states that

all evidence presented

for examination

proves the accused innocent.

I am sure the bench is aware of

the 100 year old Dreyfuss case,

which framed an innocent man

as a spy at a French military trial.

At that time, despite the fact

the real offender was arrested,

Dreyfuss was sentenced

to life in prison.

Just to maintain

governmental authority.

But now in 21st century

more than 100 years later,

a more absurd trial is being run

by the Korean judicial system.

Even before the trial was held,

the Judiciary defined

the accuser's actions as a serious

challenge against constitutionalism,

and publicly announced it

as a fact.

I would like to ask who is

actually posing a serious threat

to Korea's constitutionalism?

It is the Judiciary itself!

Judge SHIN Jaeyeol.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

This trial will end like this,

but humiliation will last forever.

Remember the Dreyfuss court

eventually succumbed

to great resistance

from the French public!

Accordingly, one day

this judicial system's arrogance

will have to stand judgment

in the Korean public's court.

All cross-examinations

will be c1osed.

The sentence date is scheduled

for April 14th, at 10 am.

SENTENCE DAY, APRIL 14th, 2008

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes