[GOING SEVENTEEN] EP.142 무죄 추정 #1 (Innocent Until Proven Guilty #1)

Share

Summary

A murder trial unfolds in Maeseok District Court concerning the death of prison physician Park Seungwon. Inmate Choi Seungcheol is accused of injecting antifreeze into the victim's IV. The prosecution and defense present their arguments, examining motives, evidence, and witness testimonies, including fellow inmates and correctional officers.

Highlights

Crime Scene Analysis and Absence of Fingerprints
00:13:00

At the crime scene, investigators note that the medical wing's CCTV camera was deliberately turned away by Park Seungwon before Choi Seungcheol's arrival. They speculate that Choi Seungcheol could have used gauze or cotton balls to inject the antifreeze without leaving fingerprints, especially given his handcuffed state.

The Crime and Initial Accusation
00:00:23

On September 20, 2025, in Maeseok Prison's medical wing, physician Park Seungwon dies. Inmate Choi Seungcheol is formally accused of his murder, specifically for injecting antifreeze into Park Seungwon's IV fluids, leading to acute drug intoxication. The trial begins on October 29, 2025.

Prosecution's Opening Statement and Lack of Direct Evidence
00:03:56

The prosecution lays out its charges, stating Choi Seungcheol is responsible for Park Seungwon's death. However, they acknowledge a significant challenge: no fingerprints were found, indicating an absence of direct evidence. The motive for the crime also remains unclear at this stage.

Uncovering a Potential Motive
00:04:48

Investigators delve into Choi Seungcheol's past as a model prisoner and his recent assaults. Witness Oh Saemin reveals that Park Seungwon was rumored to be behind Choi Seungcheol's denied parole and recent assaults, providing a potential motive for murder based on resentment.

Defense's Rebuttal and Challenge to Motive
00:10:05

The defense, led by Lawyer Boo, argues against the prosecution's claims, stating there is no direct evidence linking Choi Seungcheol to the murder, such as fingerprints or surveillance footage. They also contend that the alleged motive (resentment over parole) is too weak for a murder charge and that other individuals within the prison may have also resented the victim.

Antifreeze as Key Evidence
00:12:10

The prosecution presents forensic evidence that antifreeze, specifically LLC used in vehicles, was found in Park Seungwon's blood and matched the antifreeze found in the prison's repair shop where Choi Seungcheol worked. This links him to the means of the crime.

Witness Oh Saemin's Testimony and Credibility Issues
00:15:04

Inmate Oh Saemin testifies, confirming that many disliked Park Seungwon. He also states that Choi Seungcheol was aware of antifreeze dangers due to his work in the repair shop. However, the defense raises concerns about Oh Saemin's credibility, highlighting his multiple fraud convictions and his involvement in an illegal 'snack shop' operation with the victim.

Choi Seungcheol's Claims Regarding Antifreeze and Park Seungwon's IV Use
00:19:07

Choi Seungcheol denies direct handling of antifreeze and claims limited knowledge of its dangers. He also clarifies that while he saw Park Seungwon self-administering IV fluids a few times, he was not constantly aware, explaining discrepancies in his statements. The defense attributes these inconsistencies to his compromised mental and physical state after assaults.

Correctional Officer Lee Seokmin's Testimony and Camera Blind Spot
00:31:37

Correctional officer Lee Seokmin testifies that Park Seungwon regularly turned the medical wing's camera away to self-administer IV drips, an act known to Lee Seokmin but not Choi Seungcheol. The defense argues that it's illogical for Choi Seungcheol to commit murder while believing a camera was filming him, emphasizing his unawareness of the blind spot.

Video Evidence and Final Arguments
00:33:41

Surveillance footage shows Park Seungwon creating the camera blind spot and later, Lee Seokmin and Park Seungwon leaving Choi Seungcheol alone in the room before Park Seungwon's death. The defense uses this to reinforce that Choi Seungcheol, disoriented from an assault, would not have known about the camera's angle and thus, would not have committed murder under surveillance.

Recently Summarized Articles

Loading...