[Anchor]

The court has also found Kim Keon-hee guilty regarding charges involving a painting by artist Lee Ufan, which had even sparked controversy over its authenticity.

Legal affairs reporter Im Chanjong explains how the court ruled on the key issues.

[Reporter]

There were three main issues regarding the charge that Kim Keon-hee received a painting by artist Lee Ufan, worth 140 million won, from former prosecutor Kim Sang-min in February 2023.

First, regarding whether the painting was actually provided, Kim claimed that the painting was found at the residence of her brother's mother-in-law and that she had never even seen the painting in question.

However, the court determined that the painting was provided to Kim Keon-hee, citing testimony from the seller that former prosecutor Kim Sang-min stated during the purchase process that it was for Kim Keon-hee, and evidence suggesting that Kim's brother moved several of her belongings to the mother-in-law's residence after the special counsel investigation began in earnest.

The second issue was the authenticity of the painting.

The court acknowledged it as an authentic work, stating that while the judgments of the two appraisal institutions were divided, the appraisal result concluding it was authentic was more credible.

The court also recognized the final issue, the existence of a quid pro quo.

The court ruled that the act of former prosecutor Kim Sang-min, who had intentions of entering politics since early 2023, providing an expensive piece of art to the spouse of the president around that time appears to have been done in expectation of assistance for his future political career, and that Kim Keon-hee also appeared to be aware of this.

[Cho Soon-pyo / Presiding Judge, Criminal Agreement Division 21, Seoul Central District Court: Considering the close relationship between Kim Keon-hee and Kim Sang-min, the value of the painting in this case, and the timing of the transfer, it appears that the defendant, Kim Keon-hee, was also aware at the time of receipt that it was a gift provided in exchange for mediation, expecting her assistance and the exercise of her influence.]

The court pointed out that the subsequent events—where former prosecutor Kim Sang-min declared his candidacy for the National Assembly while accepting disciplinary action, and was appointed as a special advisor to the director of the National Intelligence Service after his nomination failed—are also ex post facto circumstances that demonstrate the quid pro quo nature of the gift.

(Video reporting: Yang Hyun-chul | Video editing: Kim Jong-tae)