▲ Former Black Pearl Invest CEO Lee Jong-ho arriving at the special counsel office in October 2025
An acquittal has been finalized for Lee Jong-ho, former CEO of Black Pearl Invest and a close associate of Kim Keon-hee, who was indicted on charges of ordering an acquaintance to destroy his mobile phone while undergoing an investigation by the special counsel team looking into allegations surrounding lobbying to save the late Marine, led by Independent Counsel Lee Myung-hyun.
The Marine Corps special counsel team expressed regret, stating, "We had hoped the Supreme Court, through a full bench deliberation, would directly address the structural problems inherent in the legal doctrine regarding evidence destruction, but the case was not referred to the full bench."
The Supreme Court's Second Division (presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) finalized the lower court's ruling that acquitted Lee of charges of instigating evidence destruction during his final appeal today (October 8).
This decision follows the legal principle that Lee should be viewed as a co-principal rather than an instigator of evidence destruction, and that destroying one's own evidence in a criminal case is not subject to punishment.
The 3 million won fine for an acquaintance surnamed Cha, who carried out the destruction and disposal of the phone, was upheld.
Lee was accused of instructing Cha to break and discard his mobile phone at Jamwon Hangang Park in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on July 15 of last year.
Investigations showed that Lee first threw his phone onto the ground to break it, after which Cha trampled it with his foot and disposed of it in a trash can at the Han River park.
At the time, the Marine Corps special counsel team was examining whether Lee had used his ties with Kim Keon-hee to intervene in lobbying efforts to save former 1st Marine Division Commander Lim Sung-geun.
Last November, the special counsel team requested summary orders of 5 million won in fines for Lee and 3 million won for his acquaintance Cha, respectively, but the case was referred to a regular trial by the court's decision.
The first instance court acquitted Lee while sentencing Cha to a fine of 3 million won.
The first-instance court viewed that they committed the destruction jointly, categorizing Lee as a co-principal rather than an instigator, and ruled him not guilty based on the principle that destroying one's own evidence in a criminal case cannot be punished.
Although the special counsel team appealed, the second-instance ruling was the same.
The appellate court stated, "It appears that Lee recognized he could face criminal punishment if the contents regarding illegal lobbying contained in his mobile phone were exposed," adding, "We do not accept the special counsel's argument that the evidence in question constituted someone else's evidence rather than his own."
The Supreme Court also upheld this judgment, dismissing the appeals filed by both Cha and the special counsel team.
Following the ruling, the special counsel team released a statement saying, "We express deep regret over the outcome."
The special counsel team noted, "We requested a full bench referral because we wanted the Supreme Court to directly address the structural problems of the evidence destruction legal doctrine, rather than just the guilt or innocence of the case, but that did not happen."
The special counsel team argued, "Under the current legal doctrine—which dictates that destroying one's own evidence is generally not punished, and punishes it exceptionally as an 'abuse of the right to defense' only when another person is made to do it—a paradox arises where a person who goes beyond merely giving instructions and actively participates in the actual execution manages to evade punishment."
They added, "Defendant Lee Jong-ho was acquitted despite going beyond giving instructions and even carrying out the crime. A conclusion that fails to hold accountable the person who destroyed the evidence will be difficult for many citizens to accept."
They further stated, "If a precedent remains that individuals can evade responsibility even after destroying evidence, it will be difficult to prevent future subjects of investigations from making the same choice. Once the ruling is made public, we will thoroughly review the specific reasons for the judgment," and added, "We hope this issue will be discussed within the legislature, academia, and the judiciary."
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.