I Hear Your Voice (Neoui Moksoriga Deulleo / 너의 목소리가 들려)

You understood what I just said, right?

Starting from now, we are going to switch our tactic.

We are saying that Min Joon Gook is alive.

Out of the remaining suspects . . .

So, if you can, try not to be intimidated by the jury.

Okay?

What?

How can you trust me more than I trust myself?

How are you sure that I'm not the culprit?

I told you.

You made a promise to me

that you would never kill Min Joon Gook.

Do you trust me because of the promise?

Just because of that one promise?

Do you know what kind of a person you were?

So, as to keep a promise that I didn't even remember,

you searched for me for 10 years.

Does that make sense?

Just to keep a promise, you tried for 10 years.

As the prosecutor said,

I admit that we cast suspicion on people without sufficient evidence.

In that all this evidence

pointed to one person, the Prosecution asserts that person is the Defendant Park Soo Ha.

However, there is one other suspect.

He was at the crime scene and fits with all the evidence.

Also, has a call record,

wields a knife as a weapon,

and had the strength to cut off a wrist.

Who is that person?

It is victim, Min Joon Gook.

What are you saying, Counselor?

Min Joon Gook is the deceased victim in this case!

How can he...

How can you say that he was the criminal?

Your Honor,

and Members of the jury.

We think that victim, Min Joon Gook, is still alive.

Episode 11 I'm Sorry, I Hate You.

Prosecution and Defense counsels, will you approach the bench for a moment?

Counsel, why are you like this?

Something so significant should have been said at the pre-trial hearing.

If we had figured it out earlier, we would have told you. But what can we do since we only thought of it now?

This is an ill-advised supposition.

You know that, right?

We know.

However, even if it is ill-advised, it is a claim worth making.

For the Defendant's sake.

This is a jury trial.

The Prosecution will not accept any additional evidence or witnesses.

We'll try to do it based on the evidence we already have.

All right.

But you must know that we're making an unusual exception for this case.

-Thank you. -Thank You.

Then, let's start the questioning of witness Hwang Dal Joong.

As of now, you have served 26 years for the crime of mutilation homicide of your wife, correct?

Yes.

At that time, because only your wife's left hand was found,

the case was nick-named the Left-Hand Murder case, right?

Yes.

While serving time with the victim Min Joon Gook, have you ever told him about this case?

Yes, I have.

You have heard that Min Joon Gook was murdered, correct?

Yes.

The evidence pointing to the murder of the victim, Min Joong Gook,

was his left hand, which was found at the site of the incident.

Did you know that?

No.

Don't you think that this case is

too similar to be considered a coincidence?

Yes, I suppose so.

Then, let's think about this scenario.

At the time, the victim, Min Joon Gook,

was wanted for suspicion of attempted murder and commission of a retaliatory crime,

he heard about the Left-Hand incident from the witness

and got an idea.

While being freed forever from being wanted by the police,

he could also exact revenge on the Defendant, Park Soo Ha.

Thus, he cut off his own left hand

and made it seem as though Park Soo Ha committed a mutilation murder.

Your Honor, Defense counsel is now distorting the facts with speculation.

Isn't the Prosecution's charge also speculation?

Only the left hand was discovered!

The rest of the body has not been found anywhere.

From the beginning, without any body,

labeling this case as murder is speculation. No,

it's wrong, in my opinion.

On May 30, 2012, did Park Soo Ha come to the police station

and threaten you?

Huh? Yes.

What kind of threat was it?

"If you people don't take action, I might find Min Joon Gook myself

and kill him."

That's what he said.

If Min Joon Gook were murdered,

who would be the first person that you, the witness,

would suspect as the criminal?

Park Soo Ha...

Nothing further.

Witness, on May 31, 2012, you lost your gun, am I correct?

Huh?

If you don't tell the truth, I'll kill you. I'm watching you.

Yes, I did.

Did you suspect Park Soo Ha as

the person who stole your gun?

Yes.

Did Park Soo Ha actually steal the gun?

No, no! That was just my mistake.

Did you, as a result of that "mistake",

suspect Park Soo Ha as Min Joon Gook's murderer?

That's, well, I don't...

No further questions.

Policeman witness.

This knife, which the defendant allegedly used during the murder,

was a knife that the defendant usually had in his possession throughout the day

and had the defendant's fingerprints all over it.

On the knife, the victim Min Joon Gook's fingerprints were also discovered.

Also, one week before the incident,

when the victim Min Joon Gook wounded Park Soo Ha and Jang Hye Seong,

it was the knife that he took with him when he ran away.

Which means that the victim, Min Joon Gook,

was the last to hold the weapon.

If you look at the victim Min Joon Gook's call records,

the last person with whom he had a call

was the Defendant Park Soo Ha.

The side who made the call was the victim and

the Defendant took the call.

If the intention was to meet and murder,

then the one who initiated the call should have been the Defendant.

There was a significant amount of blood spilled at the crime scene,

and also a left hand was found.

The Defense Counsel should have had

enough evidence to determine that the victim, Min Joon Gook was alive.

Along the lines of what the Prosecutor said,

they should have also brought enough evidence to prove that the victim is actually dead.

The amount of blood spilled was not enough to cause death.

Also, the left hand alone is not evidence of death.

Body... ?

You're doing well.

Almost all of the evidence has been overturned.

Wow, this is really good.

Auntie, how much for one box?

50,000 won ($50)

If you go to Seoul, it's 10,000 won for just one peach.

Then can you pack this up nicely so I can take it?

Oh, of course. Do you want one box?

No, two boxes.

Okay.

But, Auntie . . .

How did Park Soo Ha look when you met? People say she looks pretty.

Was she glamorous?

Well, her body was voluptuous, so, she was glamorous.

Oh, really?

Park Soo Ha is a guy.

See, you never saw him personally.

So, how did you turn him in?

Get out!

You came to take my reward money, right?

I'm not going to sell this to you. Go!

Go!

- I said go! - That stings!

I didn't come to take your money!!

Really! I swear!

So tell me! How did you know to report?

Ow!!! Auntie!! Auntie!!

Auntie!!

Open the door!!!

We've finished reception of evidence and will proceed to closing arguments.

Let's start with the prosecution first.

Last year, there was a time when I took on a murder case.

It was a case where the culprit went to find the mother of whom he had a grudge on,

and he murdered her by setting a fire.

There was sufficient evidence to say that the defendant was the criminal.

There was sufficient evidence of a relationship of enmity.

And, he was the last to be spotted on the CCTV in front of the store before it malfunctioned.

On the victim's head was an injury indicative of the head being struck twice with a blunt weapon.

The victim was clearly murdered.

Of course, according to my criteria.

But, the lawyer stated that it wasn't a murder, but, an accident.

The fracture of the head was due to a fall caused by an arrhythmia,

the CCTV broke down coincidentally, and the fire was accidental, not arsonous.

The lawyer stated that it was a tragedy

created by horrid coincidences.

And, that there was reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the culprit was released.

Also, immediately after the release, he went after the people against whom he had a grudge and terrorized them.

Although there was a lot of evidence, we had only scored 80 out of a 100,

So, he was acquitted

because the remaining 20 pieces could be aligned to draw a different picture,

which would become reasonable doubt, the Defense plead not guilty.

Out of a 100 pieces in a elephant puzzle, putting only 80 pieces together doesn't

make it look like a tiger or a cat.

If you match only 80 pieces, even a kindergartener can tell that it is an elephant.

Look at the puzzle I showed you today

you know what picture it is.

The Defendant's fingerprints on the knife, the relationship,

call records, his confession and the left-hand.

I ask you for a fair trial,

so that all the evidence will not come to naught as with the trial of last year.

And, also not to render the wrong verdict on the criminal.

Next. Counsel, please give your closing argument.