Public enterprise employees indicted for receiving kickbacks and conducting unfair evaluations during bidding processes for construction project management services ordered by Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) have had their acquittals finalized by the Supreme Court due to evidence being unlawfully collected by prosecutors.

According to legal circles today, Supreme Court Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-goo) recently finalized the lower court's acquittal ruling in the appeal trial for bribery charges against public enterprise employee A and others.

Employee A, who served as a screening committee member for construction project management service bids ordered by LH, was indicted on charges of receiving 70 million won in kickbacks in 2020 from two competing companies participating in the bidding in exchange for requests to be selected as service providers.

Employee B, another screening committee member, was also indicted without detention alongside Employee A in July 2024 on charges of receiving 20 million won in kickbacks from a competing company.

The first instance court recognized the charges as guilty in December of that year, sentencing Employee A to three years in prison and a fine of 70 million won, and Employee B to two years in prison and a fine of 20 million won, respectively.

The first instance court stated, "The construction-related work in which the defendants were involved pertains to apartment construction projects to be used by an unspecified many," adding, "As shoddy construction of apartments can cause massive risks to the safety of an unspecified many, strict punishment is necessary."

However, the second instance court overturned the ruling and acquitted them, stating that the admissibility of key evidence presented by prosecutors—such as documents related to the bid evaluation and recording files—could not be recognized.

Prosecutors investigating the LH bid-rigging case collected the materials in the process of executing a search and seizure warrant issued under charges of violating the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, but the second instance court judged them to be illegally collected evidence arbitrarily secured during a separate criminal investigation.

The court pointed out, "Upon discovering the materials, prosecutors should have immediately suspended the search and gone through the legitimate procedure of obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant, yet they secured the materials and further utilized them for the investigation of separate crimes such as bribery."

Accordingly, the court ruled that both the prosecutor's interrogation protocols and the witness testimonies in court conducted on the basis of those materials lacked admissibility as evidence.

Although prosecutors appealed the second instance ruling, the Supreme Court saw no errors in such judgment and dismissed the appeal.

(Photo: Yonhap News)