KOR- Structure: Pharmaceutical company (Mr. Kang) → Broker (Ms. Yang) → Kim Seung-won
- Mr. Kang and Ms. Yang indicted on charges of promising bribes... Kim received suspension of indictment
- No dispute over the fact that he contacted the MFDS head, but
- Prosecution vs. Kim Seung-won: Clash between "illicit solicitation" and "passing along a civil complaint"
- Like asking to 'take a good look' when an acquaintance's child takes a public enterprise hiring exam
- 'How would the listener feel?'… Moral controversy inevitable
■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00 AM)
■ Date: Friday, September 4, 2026
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Lim Chan-jong, SBS Legal Affairs Reporter
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Reporting notes unraveled by a legal affairs reporter roaming Seocho-dong. 'The Man Living with the Law' (Beopsanam). We are joined by SBS Legal Affairs Reporter Lim Chan-jong. Hello.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Hello.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Reporter Lim, what is today's topic?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: I gave this allegation a name like this. In the past, wasn't there the so-called Cheongdam-dong drinking session allegation?
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Involving Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon and Lawmaker Kim Eui-kyeom.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Now Representative Han Dong-hoon. Although it was later revealed to be false. But drawing a comparison to that, if I were to name this allegation, wouldn't it be the 'Cheongdam-dong bar owner allegation'? It is an allegation related to Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won. As I will explain shortly, a female broker surnamed Yang appears in the middle. She is an acquaintance of nominee Kim Seung-won, and the media has reported that she is a former entertainment establishment owner. Reports mentioned that Lawmaker Kim had represented her in related cases back when he was a practicing lawyer.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: But that entertainment establishment was located in Cheongdam-dong. So she is a former Cheongdam-dong bar owner. Thus, this can be seen as an allegation related to a Cheongdam-dong bar owner.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: I see. You gave it that title. The Cheongdam-dong bar owner allegation. But this allegation wasn't about collecting unpaid bar bills or anything like that. The core issue is the MFDS lobbying allegations, lobbying regarding a new COVID-19 drug, right?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: That's right.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Please explain what kind of case this is.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Let me explain. It is actually quite complex, but I will explain it as simply as possible. First, there are three key figures. One is the owner and representative of this pharmaceutical company.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Mr. Kang.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: A person named Mr. Kang, who is also a university professor. And for those watching on YouTube, the graphic shows Yang looking like a man, but she is not a man.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: She is a woman, a woman.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: She is female, female. There is a person referred to as broker Ms. Yang. She is the former Cheongdam-dong bar owner I mentioned earlier. According to her, she has been acquainted with nominee Kim Seung-won since around 2004, so it is certain that they are quite close. And the third figure is Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won. These three are the key figures. What happened is that in 2021, Mr. Kang's company applied to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) for clinical trial plan approval, stating they wanted to conduct clinical trials for a new COVID-19 drug.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Right when COVID-19 was at its peak.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Yes, in 2021. But after submitting that application, they agreed to receive investments from other companies on the condition that the clinical trial plan would be approved. And they actually received investment funds later.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: That was 6 billion won, right?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Right. 6 billion won, and there was also 5 billion won. Transferring 5 billion won in convertible bonds (CB), and buying 6 billion won worth of Mr. Kang's shares, and so forth. While the exact calculation method may vary slightly, in any case, they secured a substantial amount of investment. But the prerequisite was clinical trial plan approval. However, the MFDS delayed the clinical trial plan approval somewhat compared to the date Mr. Kang had hoped for. Mr. Kang and broker Ms. Yang had extensive business ties. And since Ms. Yang claimed to have political and government connections, particularly knowing nominee Kim Seung-won—who was a lawmaker at the time and remains one today—very well, she was asked to request Lawmaker Kim and political figures to help expedite the approval of the MFDS clinical trial plan. Ms. Yang then contacted nominee Kim Seung-won. She explained the situation, saying investments were lined up and they wanted it processed quickly, asking if he could look into it. In response, then-lawmaker Kim, nominee Kim, made phone calls and sent text messages on October 12 to then-MFDS Minister Kim Gang-lip, asking him to look into the matter closely and hoping it could be handled quickly. The MFDS head then replied to nominee Kim that he had instructed working-level officials to handle it well and expedite the process, indicating that things were progressing smoothly.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Nominee Kim then forwarded that response to Ms. Yang. So in the end,
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Meaning he forwarded it to her saying, "Look, this is what the MFDS head did regarding what you asked for"?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Yes. After making that request on October 12, the clinical trial plan approval was granted on October 26. And in between, they received the aforementioned investments. Consequently, allegations are being raised: didn't Ms. Yang lobby nominee Kim Seung-won and succeed? Or at least, even if success was not solely due to that, wasn't the very act of lobbying and making such petitions inappropriate?
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: So they underwent a prosecution investigation at the time—then-lawmaker Kim Seung-won, broker Ms. Yang, and Professor Kang, the owner of the company, Genencell.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Yes.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: What was the final outcome of the investigation?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: There are several aspects to the investigation results. For one part, first-instance rulings have already been delivered following earlier indictments, while other indictments were made later. What people are most curious about is: first, regarding Mr. Kang, significant portions of the materials submitted to the MFDS for clinical trial plan approval were false. He was indicted for submitting those false materials, and Mr. Kang also purchased about 600 million won worth of convertible bonds (CB) of Ms. Yang's company using corporate funds. He was found guilty of breach of trust for that in the first trial.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: But the critical part concerns Lawmaker Kim Seung-won. Regarding this part, there is a dispute. The underlying facts—that nominee Kim placed calls and contacted the MFDS head following various requests—are undisputed. However, nominee Kim merely argues that it was not improper, but was rather a public-interest civil petition activity, a public-interest grievance petition. There is no dispute over the facts themselves.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: But there is controversy here. The prosecution indicted Mr. Kang and Ms. Yang in 2024 on charges of promising to offer a bribe. Specifically, because he helped, Mr. Kang promised to provide 5 million won in political donations to nominee Kim Seung-won. They reached the point of promising the donation, but because the political donation account was already full, the money was not actually transferred. Since they made the promise, they were indicted on charges of promising to offer a bribe.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: And because nominee Kim expressed gratitude at the time and sent the account details, then-lawmaker Kim was also...
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Nominee Kim faced allegations of promising to accept a bribe for mediation, which means promising to receive a bribe. However, nominee Kim was not indicted; he was given a suspension of indictment. As you know well as a lawyer, a suspension of indictment means that while the constitutive elements of a crime are satisfied, the prosecution decides not to indict due to various circumstances. That is the current situation.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: In the end, regarding the promise to offer a bribe, were Mr. Kang and Ms. Yang, who promised to give it, punished?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: They have not been sentenced yet. That trial is currently ongoing.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Regardless, they were indicted.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Yes, they were indicted. For the aforementioned submission of false materials to the MFDS, breach of trust, and use of undisclosed inside information, Mr. Kang received a suspended prison sentence in the first trial, though he was acquitted of some charges.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: What about the charge of promising to offer a bribe?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: The first trial for promising to offer a bribe is currently underway.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: The charge of promising to offer a bribe is still ongoing, right?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Yes.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yet for nominee Kim Seung-won, the prosecution neither cleared him of suspicion nor indicted him, but acknowledged the offense and granted a suspension of indictment.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Yes.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Why did the prosecution make such a decision, and why is nominee Kim Seung-won strongly objecting to this?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: First, as to why the prosecution arrived at that judgment, there seems to be room for various interpretations. Officially, the reason for a suspension of indictment is that while the elements of a crime are met and an offense was committed, considering all circumstances comprehensively, pursuing criminal punishment is deemed problematic.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: But why they made that decision—specifically, why they indicted those who promised to offer a bribe while granting a suspension of indictment to the person accused of promising to receive a bribe—requires further explanation. On the other hand, nominee Kim maintains that his actions were completely unproblematic from the start, and that because the prosecution placed a sort of stigma on him through the suspension of indictment, he felt deeply wronged and filed a petition with the Constitutional Court seeking to overturn the suspension of indictment. He stated that the Constitutional Court is currently reviewing the case thoroughly.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Was this a legitimate civil petition, or an improper solicitation?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Ultimately, this needs to be viewed in two aspects. One is whether it constitutes a criminal offense, which hinges on whether there was a promise to offer a bribe—that is, an agreement to receive money as mentioned earlier. That remains an area of dispute.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: The other aspect is the moral evaluation of whether it was legitimate or not. He termed it a 'public-interest civil petition activity.' But when looking at the outcome dispassionately, as to whether it can truly be regarded as public interest, moral controversy appears inevitable. To put it simply, an acquaintance of nominee Kim asked him to look into or expedite a matter at the MFDS for a company she knew well, and he filed a petition concerning the private interests of that individual and that company.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: In any case, that company made substantial money.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Of course, nominee Kim's side contends that they never requested preferential treatment, and that the company did not actually receive any preferential treatment. Even setting that aside, nominee Kim essentially asked them to take a good look and process it quickly.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: To use an analogy with individuals rather than a company: suppose an acquaintance's child takes a hiring exam at a public enterprise. Someone gets a call saying, "My child took the exam; I'm not asking you to pass them, but please put in a good word to take a close look." And a lawmaker conveys, "I'm not asking you to pass them, but I hear an outstanding candidate applied, so please take a good look and decide quickly."
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: From the perspective of the person hearing that...
▶ Lim Chan-jong: From the perspective of the person on the receiving end, how would they perceive that? There is ample room for that to become problematic and controversial.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. We have about 30 seconds left. Is there any particular aspect Reporter Lim is focusing on regarding this case?
▶ Lim Chan-jong: As I just mentioned, setting aside the legal issue of whether this constitutes a criminal offense, I believe we must continue watching how the moral and ethical controversy will ultimately be evaluated.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Let's discuss Judge Jeong next time—the judge whose photo attending a drinking gathering was disclosed yesterday and who dismissed the warrant.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Because we ran out of time.
▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Time is up for today, so we will wrap up here. That was reporter Lim Chan-jong. Thank you.
▶ Lim Chan-jong: Thank you.
Copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing the full text or citing this interview for reporting,
please state the channel name and the exact program name as shown below.
[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.
