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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!