Law School (로스쿨)

The moment all puzzle pieces fall into place,

reasonable doubt subsides,

and substantial truth is revealed.

It's the beginning of judgment by the law with scales and a sword.

Is the law truly righteous?

TRUTH AND JUSTICE ONLY BY THE LAW

OCTOBER 2020, PRESENT

Prosecution, continue your questioning.

-Witness. -Yes.

Do you regret obtaining pentobarbital, a euthanasia drug,

per the defendant's request?

I do.

I wouldn't have obtained it

if I knew he wanted to kill a person instead of a terminally ill dog.

That's all.

Counsel, cross-examine.

YEONJU-DONG DRUG POISONING MURDER CASE

Witness, you're the defendant's university friend,

who's running an animal clinic.

We're alumni, but he changed his major--

Please answer yes or no.

Yes.

The defendant changed his major and is in Dental School.

Can't he easily get his hands on drugs such as ketamine or propofol?

Objection. It's a leading question.

Didn't you know it's allowed in cross-examination?

Please answer yes or no.

He can obtain it, can't he?

Yes.

If he was going to kill a person,

why would he have asked the witness, who's a veterinarian,

to obtain the euthanasia drug?

-I think-- -That's unnecessary

from a man who was jealous of the defendant.

-Objection! -The witness cannot make an objection.

The defendant only wanted to euthanize his terminally ill pet dog.

And the witness was well aware of that.

Objection.

The counsel is humiliating the witness.

-Sustain-- -I admit.

Stating the witness had a crush

and was jealous of the defendant

could lead to an impression his testimony is false,

so I withdraw the statement.

-Objection. -That's all.

YEONJU-DONG DRUG POISONING MURDER CASE

Let's take a 30-minute break.

YOUR DONATION WILL BRING JUSTICE

A MONUMENT FOR ALUMNUS SEO BYUNG-JU'S DEDICATION

You shouldn't lead him on that much.

Do you know why the counsel is allowed

to lead the witness during the cross-examination?

It's saying we can go all out.

To destroy the prosecutor's argument.

I shouldn't do that much? My ass.

Sorry.

I got summoned as a witness for the prosecution,

but I only did her good.

I really hate you.

Not me, right?

What can I do? I was only allowed to answer yes or no.

Should I have pleaded the Fifth?

The Fifth is there

for the defendant to use, not the witness.

What? Why were you there?

If the witness wants to refuse to testify…

use the right to refuse to testify.

How dare a defendant jump on the bench.

It's not for a judge who's wearing pajamas under the bench to say.

How dare you say that to the judge. I'll punish you for insulting the--

Not insulting. Contempt.

-Criminal Code? -Article 138?

Precisely.

Darn it.

Anyway, if we're told to answer only yes or no, do we have to?

No, you don't have to.

What? I didn't have to answer yes or no?

I said yes for nothing.

Exactly.

The break is getting too long.

Did Professor Seo fall asleep?

Shouldn't we go find him?

Please do that, guard.

Yes, Your Honor.

YEONJU-DONG DRUG POISONING MURDER CASE

Professor Seo.

Professor Seo?

Professor Seo, the break is over.

Professor, are you asleep?

Professor?

YEONJU-DONG DRUG POISONING MURDER CASE

Hello.

We had no idea.

-We were all here. -Everyone was here.

Prosecutor Yang.

KCSI

50 TEST STRIPS, 1 BOTTLE

GREEN TEA

I found this in the victim's inner pocket.

It must be suicide.

I'M SICK OF LIVING THIS LIFE

LET ME LEAVE THIS HELL

Someone who wanted to take his life today won't need

those blood sugar test strips delivered.

Yes, you're right.

MR. SEO, 50 TEST STRIPS, 1 BOTTLE

He's a prosecutor I used to work with,

a professor at this law school.

Professor Yang Jong-hoon.

MARCH 2020

Yang Jong-hoon, the Criminal Code.

Case number 2017D4114.

Kim Cheol-su and Lee Yeong-hui made a sex tape under consent in an affair.

When Lee wanted to leave,

Kim filmed the said video on his phone

then sent the recorded video to Lee's husband.

The first and second trials found him guilty,

but the Supreme Court acquitted him.

What's the key issue here?

The high bun.

I don't think anyone in here has a high bun.

The main issue was Article 14 of the Act on Punishment of Sexual Crimes.

It punishes those who use cameras to film other people's body

or distribute the photograph or video.

The key issue was if the word "body" should be taken literally.

The first and second trials pronounced him as guilty,

interpreting the image of a body as a person's body.

But the Supreme Court disagreed

and found him innocent.

If you film someone's body directly, you're guilty.

But it's not a crime to take a photo of this.

-If you were the judge? -I'm with the Supreme Court.

Criminal punishment abides by principle of legality.

We must stay away from inference.

That's not right.

When we extend the interpretation of a body to photos and videos of someone,

kissing this fellow student on the lips

would be considered the same as kissing her photo.

That's not right.

So it wasn't a narrow interpretation?

When it comes to the misapplication or people's emotional acceptance,

the law has been amended to include a person's body

as well as the re-recording of someone's photo

in the year 2018.

The law was the issue, not the interpretation.

Legislation is the solution.

Second-round judicial exam?

Second-round judicial exam?

I heard one of the freshmen passed it.

That's amazing.

Yes, I'm Han Joon-hwi.

If you want me to remember you,

you better not take away other students' chance to answer anymore.

Choi Mi-yeong, a drug offender, sued

Kim Min-su, the prosecutor, for rape.

After the investigation, he wasn't indicted for rape but bribery

and the Supreme Court found him guilty.

The high bun from two minutes and ten seconds ago, what's the issue?

Sorry? Right. It's…

He was indicted for bribery and not rape because…

-I tried to come prepared-- -The issue?

The issue is, well…

So the issue is?

We don't know if he raped her.

We don't know, or was it not rape?

-Sorry? Right, it doesn't look like rape. -Doesn't look like rape?

Will your decision say, "He seems guilty"?

You'd answer that if you came prepared.

It wasn't rape.

If it was bribery, what about Choi?

Choi Mi-yeong was…

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Kang Sol B.

If it's a rape case, Choi Mi-yeong would be a victim.

But if it's bribery, she'd be accused, too.

Choi became a suspect because sex was considered as a bribe.

And the key issue?

Is sex considered as a bribe?

Why did the court say yes?

-The essence of the bribe-- -Kang Sol A.

Me?

Well, it's…

Since some people pay money to have intercourse,

she bribed him with sex, not money--

So sex can be turned into monetary value,

acknowledging commercialization of sex?

-No, that's not what I meant. -Then what?

It's not that the court commercialized sex.

Then what?

-I'm sorry. My mind went blank-- -Kang Sol B.

The court considered the benefit of bribery

not only as monetary or property gain

but anything tangible and intangible

that can satisfy the demand and desire of a human.

It considered sexual benefit through intercourse

as an intangible benefit.

Kang Sol A.

Why did the court acknowledge sex as a bribe?

Kang Sol B just told you--

Kang Sol A, I'm waiting to hear an answer from you!