先說明,不要把文章內容或任何一部分轉貼去任何地方/告訴任何人,
或和任何人公開/私下討論.請自重.No Excuse Again!
======================================================
Unless otherwise sealed by court permission, all documents that are filed with the court, including the indictment, should be public. (I expect the indictment itself to be quite short and not particularly revealing.) The trial transcript should also be publicly available. In the US, sometime supplemental papers are filed after the trial. Not sure if this will happen here. If there were, they should be public too. That's the whole point of having public and transparent trial process.
除非另有法院密封許可，不然所有向法院提交的文件，包括起訴書，應該是公開的。
（我預料起訴書本身的內容應該是很簡短，沒有特別說明/揭露什麼。 ）審判筆錄也應該是公開。
在美國，有時在審訊後還必須提交補充文件。不知道這是否會發生在那裡。
如果有，他們也應該公開。這是直接了當的向公眾公開整個透明審判程序的要點。
(注:目前好像沒有任何媒體公開了起訴書內容,難道起訴書內容被法院禁止公開了嗎?)
Most of the exculpatory or mitigating factors (first offender, remorse, family burden, drunken condition .... ) for the offense that I had been expecting were certainly all mentioned by JH and his attorney. How forceful, especially by the attorney, I couldn't get a sense. I also don't know if the prosecutor responded in any way to the defense's statements about those exculpatory or mitigating factors. That would provide a clue how forceful and serious the prosecution is really pushing for the recommended sentence.
我一直期待所有會被他的律師提到,大多數對於開脫罪責或減輕罪行的因素（如:初犯，悔恨，家庭負擔，醉酒狀態.... ）的說詞，全部都被正確的提出給法院。
如何強有力的辯駁，特別是那位律師，我還不能覺察得到。
我也不知道,如果檢察官對被告所提供關於無罪或減輕罪行的因素所做出的聲明,會有什麼樣的反應。這將提供一個線索給檢察官,讓他如何真正有力和嚴厲地執行他所建議的求處刑罰。
I'm somewhat ambivalent about the military service argument. Mandatory military service has always been a particularly hot-button issue in Korea and has always elicit really emotional and complicated responses. Unlike the other exculpatory or mitigating factors, which are quite universal, I'm just don't know enough to even begin to guess how the military service angle plays out legally, with the judge, or with the public.
在兵役論點這方面,我有點矛盾。
在韓國,強制性兵役一直是一個特別熱點的問題，也經常引出真正情緒化和複雜的反應。
不同於其他開脫罪責或減輕的因素，這是相當普遍的，我只是不知道在法律，法官，或公眾之間,兵役論點是否有足夠勻實的影響力,甚至連開始猜測,兵役如何扮演其角色。
I also still don't have a sense whether there is a coordinated, well thought-out plan by his representatives (lawyer and/or the management company) to protect his interest by doing some damage control & record-straightening. A smart team would know when to remain silent and when and what to speak up. Having been in the legal profession for quite some time, I understand that one should do or say things or express certain emotions only if they are in the overall interest of the case and the client. So silence doesn't mean passivity. It could mean strength and be part of disciplined, smart strategic thinking. If he has a good legal team (I'm not counting the small management co), I have to believe -- I hope -- that they would do some damage control and public-relation offensive soon. Because there is no more time to waste.
我也仍然沒有意識到，他的代表（律師和/或管理公司），是否有一個協調的，深思熟慮的計劃，來做一些損害控制和記錄整頓,以保護他的利益。(注:今天在DCJUGAL已經有一個行動在策畫當中了)
智能的團隊將知道什麼時候應該保持沉默，什麼時候應該做出有意義的發言。
我已在法律專業界有相當長的一段時間，我的理解是，只有當他們在案件與客戶之間的整體利益上考量,才會做出什麼是應該做的事情,或應該說的話,或表達某種感情的決策。
因此，沉默並不意味著被動。這可能意味著實力和成為一部分的紀律決策，或聰明的思想戰略。
如果他有一個良好的法律團隊（我並不指望小管理公司） ，我認為-我希望-他們會盡快做一些有攻擊性的行動,來防止損害公共關係的事件繼續惡化。因為沒有更多的時間可以被浪費。
(注:爛魚白的確開始行動了...漫長的等待啊!!)
The judge is supposed to discuss (however briefly) how he/she has considered the arguments made by the prosecution and the defense re. the appropriate punishment before handling the sentence. If the prosecution didn't put forth strong rationale for the recommended sentence but the defense put forth strong rationale for a light sentence, then the sentence would likely be less than the prosecution's recommendation. As mentioned before, the judge will most likely look at precendents (sentences for past cases ) in determining the sentence. I still haven't been able to find out
法官理應要討論（但是要簡要的）,在做出適當的懲罰之前,他/她是如何根據檢察官所提出的起訴論點,以及被告的供詞,再經過週密考慮後才處理出判決。
如果檢察機關對於所建議的判處,沒有提出有力的理由，但被告卻為了從輕發落,能夠提出強有力的理由，那麼該刑罰可能會少於被檢察官所提出的求處刑罰建議。
如前所述，法官很可能會看之前的案件（以之前案件所處的刑罰為參考例子）來確定刑罰。
我目前仍然沒有能夠找到.
At the end of the day, these are all guesses. The bottom-line is, we can only wait. But JH's doing plenty well as a human being. He is resolved to remain true to himself and keep his integrity. Hats off to that uncompromising courage!
在一天結束時，所有的這些都是猜測。但是底線在於，我們只能等待。
可是JH作為一個人,他表現的很好。
他決心繼續忠實於自己，保持他的廉正氣節。戴著這種不妥協的勇氣帽子！
PS:真的很謝謝這位美國律師在百忙之中持續和我保持著連繫.(還有天成姐姐的熱心分析)越來越佩服她們對案件進行過程中的種種預測.真的很準確.
只是我跟太后開玩笑說,當這案件真正結束後,不知道我會不會收到一張以美金來計算的需付法律諮詢服務費用?
留言列表
