A special prosecutor who sought a 15-year prison term for Kim Keon Hee ended up with a first-trial sentence of 1 year, 8 months. The Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 27 found Kim not guilty of violating the Capital Markets Act (alleged conspiracy in the Deutsch Motors stock manipulation case) and the Political Funds Act, and convicted her only in part on charges of receiving money or valuables in return for influence under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. The court dismissed some alleged 2010-2011 conduct under the capital-markets charge as time-barred.
The special prosecutor’s three-step theory — “stock-manipulation conspiracy, presidential-election polling, and power-linked receipt of valuables” — did not hold in the ruling. The court narrowed the case away from stock manipulation and political funds and focused on the alleged receipt of valuables. The key questions now are where the prosecution’s conspiracy theory fell short and what variables could matter on appeal.
Stock-manipulation ruling stopped short of finding a conspiracy
In the Deutsch Motors case, the special prosecutor argued Kim conspired with a price-manipulation group, saying her accounts were not merely used but were part of executing the scheme.
The court said there was room to believe Kim may have recognized the possibility her money could be used for price manipulation. But it drew a line between awareness and conspiracy. To treat her as a co-principal, the court said, her role throughout the crime and coordination with accomplices must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt — a standard it found unmet.
The court also declined to treat the alleged manipulation as one continuous offense, instead dividing it by period and finding the statute of limitations had run on some parts.
The court added that whether Kim aided and abetted was not before it because the indictment alleged only co-principal liability. Once conspiracy was rejected, the court said it had no basis to consider a lesser form of responsibility.
Court cites lack of “exclusivity” in acquitting on polling allegations
On the Political Funds Act charge, the special prosecutor argued that free services amounted to political funds, claiming multiple opinion polls were provided at no cost and should be treated as political contributions.
The court applied a test it described as “exclusivity” — whether the benefit belonged only to a specific person. It said the prosecution needed to prove the poll results were provided exclusively to Kim and her husband and used for their political activity.
But the court found the results were distributed to multiple people and said evidence was insufficient to recognize a written or implied contract. It also found the costs were covered through other channels. The court viewed the polls as part of business activity voluntarily carried out by a person identified as “Myung” to promote the Mirae Korea Research Institute and his own political analysis, and said the costs had already been covered, including about 240 million won received from local-election preliminary candidates.
The court concluded that the mere fact no payment was made was not enough to label the polls political funds.
Only influence-peddling conviction remains; sentence draws mixed views
The remaining conviction involves allegations that Kim received an expensive bag and necklace from the Unification Church side in exchange for influence. The offense applies when someone accepts money or valuables on the pretext of conveying a matter tied to a public official’s duties or using influence; it does not require that a request be carried out.
The court found an overall quid pro quo between requests for government-level support and the receipt of valuables. However, it said there was no sign Kim demanded the items first and found no evidence she tried to pass a request to the president to have it reflected in policy. The court also cited her lack of prior convictions and partial remorse.
Assessments of the 1-year, 8-month sentence have differed, with some calling it light given the symbolic status of a first lady, and others saying it is not excessive given the acquittals on the stock-manipulation and political-funds charges. The ruling effectively framed the case not as a “comprehensive power-type crime” but as receiving valuables tied to status.
Appeal may hinge on bolstering conspiracy claims and changing the indictment
On appeal, the central issue is how tightly the special prosecutor can reinforce the conspiracy structure rejected at trial. A key variable is whether prosecutors will seek to amend the indictment to pursue aiding-and-abetting liability — an issue the trial court said was not in dispute and left undecided. But aiding and abetting can carry a narrower scope of responsibility than co-principal liability, potentially shifting the prosecution’s approach.
If an appeals court reverses the trial court’s view that the alleged manipulation was not a single continuing offense, the starting point for the statute of limitations could also change, potentially affecting the time-barred dismissals.
For the polling allegations, the question is how prosecutors would reconstruct “exclusivity,” including who effectively benefited and whether an implied contract can be further proven.
In its ruling, the trial court quoted a phrase meaning “frugal but not shabby, splendid but not extravagant,” using it to criticize the first lady’s conduct. The appeal is expected to test whether that moral rebuke expands into a stricter legal finding of guilt or remains where the first ruling left it.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.