The fourth hearing in the first trial of Delio CEO Jeong Sang-ho’s criminal case was held at the Seoul Southern District Court, where allegations surrounding the possible manipulation of the principal guarantee terms in Delio’s service agreements have emerged as a key issue, intensifying the ongoing legal battle.
On the afternoon of the 2nd, at 2 PM, the fourth hearing for CEO Jeong Sang-ho of Delio took place in Courtroom 306 of the Seoul Southern District Court. Jeong has been indicted on charges of fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. The trial was held under heightened security following the recent assault on the CEO of Haruinvest.
The central issues in this hearing revolved around whether Delio guaranteed the principal and the controversy over potential manipulation of the service terms. Delio maintains that the revised terms in September 2022 did not include any principal guarantee clause. However, the prosecution raised the possibility that these terms were never officially communicated to customers, arguing that while the September 2022 terms might have been reviewed internally, they were never officially notified to clients.
According to evidence presented by the prosecution, Delio revised its terms in December 2021 and March 2023, but neither of these revisions explicitly stated that any losses would be borne by the customers. In contrast, Delio argued that the revised terms from September 2022 were indeed communicated and questioned why these terms were not submitted as evidence.
Victims strongly suspect that Delio manipulated the terms and possibly tampered with evidence. The court allowed some of the plaintiffs to speak, and they voiced strong objections, alleging that CEO Jeong might have manipulated the terms.
Meanwhile, Delio’s defense argued that during the prosecution’s search and seizure process, the defendant’s right to participate was not ensured, and the list of seized items was not provided, thus claiming the illegality of the search. However, the court pointed out that the legality of the search and seizure is unrelated to the substantive truth of the case and questioned whether this argument would provide any substantial benefit to the defendant.
The court scheduled the next hearing for November 4th, during which key witnesses will be summoned for additional testimony.
