[Anchor]

Senior Judge Ji Gwi-yeon has been indicted on charges of violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act in connection with allegations of receiving free drinks and entertainment. However, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) concluded there was no quid pro quo, deciding not to apply bribery charges. Judge Ji's legal team expressed regret over what they called an overzealous application of the law.

Reporter Jeon Yeonnam has the story.

[Reporter]

In May of last year, the Democratic Party raised suspicions that Senior Judge Ji Gwi-yeon, who presided over the first-instance trial of the insurrection ringleader, received entertainment at a room salon.

[Kim Yong-min / Democratic Party lawmaker (May of last year): He drank alcohol multiple times at a room salon where costs range from 1 million to 2 million won per person, and that judge has never paid for it even once.]

Civic groups and others filed complaints with the CIO, and 1 year and 4 months after launching its investigation, the CIO indicted Senior Judge Ji without detention on charges of violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

Senior Judge Ji is accused of having two lawyers pay a drinking bill of 4.09 million won at a bar in Cheongdam-dong, Seoul, in August 2023.

Under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, if a public official receives money, valuables, or entertainment exceeding 1 million won from the same person at one time, they are subject to criminal punishment even without job-relatedness. The CIO's investigation results showed that dividing the amount among the three individuals exceeds 1 million won per person.

During the investigation, Senior Judge Ji denied the charges, stating to the effect that he "does not seem to have been drinking at the bar for a long time." The CIO stated that after reviewing taxi ride records and movement routes, they determined that Senior Judge Ji stayed at the bar for about four to five hours.

However, the CIO decided not to apply bribery charges, concluding that there was no quid pro quo because Senior Judge Ji was not handling cases involving the lawyers who provided the entertainment at the time.

In response, Senior Judge Ji's legal team stated, "We express regret over the CIO's overzealous application of the law," adding, "He attended a gathering with junior colleagues and left right away, and two lawyers paid the expenses at different times, so they cannot be viewed as the same person."

(Video Editing: Kim Jin-won)