▲ The Court
A former high-ranking police officer, who received a heavy prison sentence in the first trial on charges of accepting hundreds of millions of won in bribes, has received a significantly reduced sentence in his second trial.
The core charge of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials' (CIO) "first-ever self-initiated" case has been overturned as not guilty.
The 3rd Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Lee Seung-han) sentenced former Superintendent General Kim, who was indicted on charges including bribery under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, to one year in prison with a two-year suspension and ordered the forfeiture of 110 million won today (August 25).
Previously, the first trial sentenced the former Superintendent General to 10 years in prison, a 1.6 billion won fine, and approximately 750 million won in forfeiture, and had him taken into custody in the courtroom.
However, the appellate court ruled not guilty on the charge that former Superintendent General Kim received approximately 600 million won in bribes through a borrowed-name account from a clothing company representative identified as A (under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), differing from the first trial.
The court stated that it was not proven that the account listed in the indictment was actually a borrowed-name account belonging to former Superintendent General Kim.
The court explained, "While it appears that the defendant (former Superintendent General Kim) managed the account to some extent and intervened in some deposit and withdrawal activities, it is difficult to see it as proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he entirely managed the account and used it for deposits and withdrawals solely on his own account."
The charge of violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, in which former Superintendent General Kim received credit cards and electronic devices worth a total of 110 million won from person A, was recognized as guilty.
However, regarding this as well, the court ruled the bribery charges applied here as not guilty, stating it was not proven that person A provided them in exchange for requesting mediation regarding public official duties.
The appellate court noted, "Person A may have had a vague expectation that staying on good terms with the defendant would prevent any trouble or help them receive some assistance," but added, "According to legal principles, merely having such vague expectations does not establish the crime of mediation bribery."
In explaining its reasoning for the sentencing, the court reprimanded him, saying, "The defendant, a high-ranking police official, took over and used a credit card from an acquaintance he usually knew, received electronic products such as a laptop, and accepted money and valuables exceeding 3 million won each year across four fiscal years."
It further criticized the gravity of the offense, stating, "This violates the legislative intent of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, which was enacted to ensure public integrity and trust by allowing sanctions against public officials receiving money and valuables even without job-relatedness or quid pro quo."
Dismissal of the indictment was declared for person A, who was indicted along with former Superintendent General Kim, and an acquaintance accused of providing the borrowed-name account.
The court explained that the CIO, which investigated this case, does not have the authority to indict and maintain prosecution against ordinary citizens who are not high-ranking public officials or their family members.
It stated, "The prosecution against person A and others, who are not high-ranking public officials or their family members as stipulated by the Corruption Investigation Office Act, was brought without indictment authority by a CIO prosecutor and is invalid in violation of legal regulations."
In addition, the appellate court judged that some evidence was unlawfully collected because the CIO did not guarantee the participant rights of the person whose property was seized during the process of seizing person A's mobile phone.
The CIO had previously launched an investigation after uncovering circumstances in which former Superintendent General Kim also received bribes from person A while investigating allegations that he took bribes from Daewoo Industrial Development Chairman Lee Sang-young in exchange for covering up a police investigation.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.