Former Police Official Receives Suspended Sentence in Bribery Case

Kim, a former police official, received a suspended sentence in an appeals court after being convicted of accepting bribes totaling approximately 700 million won (about $600,000). The Seoul High Court ruled on August 25 that the key bribery charge, which alleged that Kim received over 600 million won through a secret account, was not proven. The Corruption Investigation Office (CIO) also determined it lacked the authority to prosecute civilian bribers.

The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division, led by Judge Lee Seung-han, sentenced Kim to one year in prison, suspended for two years, and ordered him to forfeit about 110 million won.

In February, the lower court had sentenced Kim to ten years in prison and imposed a fine of 1.6 billion won, along with a forfeiture of approximately 750 million won. Kim was taken into custody at that time.

Kim was charged with receiving around 770 million won from businessman A, who allegedly solicited Kim to facilitate illegal funeral services and criminal cases from June 2020 to February 2023.

The CIO charged Kim for using a credit card in A's name and receiving money through accounts held by his brother and acquaintances. This case marked the first instance of the CIO initiating an investigation after detecting criminal allegations since its establishment in 2021.

However, the appeals court found it difficult to conclude that the account from which A transferred about 630 million won was definitively Kim's secret account. While it acknowledged that Kim had some control over the account, it stated there was insufficient evidence to prove he fully managed it without the account holder's consent.

The court noted, "It is difficult to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the ability to withdraw and use the funds deposited in the account as he wished," adding that the mere fact that 630 million won was deposited from A does not automatically imply it was a payment to Kim.

Consequently, the court acquitted Kim of charges related to bribery under the Special Act on the Punishment of Specific Crimes and violations of money laundering and electronic financial transaction laws.

The court also stated that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Kim received electronic devices, including a laptop, as a reward for facilitating A's requests. Even if A had a vague expectation of receiving help from Kim, this alone does not constitute a bribery offense.

However, the court found that Kim's use of A's credit card and receipt of electronic devices valued at 110 million won constituted a violation of the prohibition of solicitation law. The use of another person's credit card also violated the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act.

The court emphasized that as a senior police official, Kim's acceptance of over 3 million won annually in gifts from acquaintances over four fiscal years violated the intent of the prohibition of solicitation law, which aims to ensure public officials' integrity and trust, regardless of the relevance or compensation related to his duties.

The court considered the fact that the total amount of bribes exceeded 100 million won and that the offenses occurred over approximately two years and seven months as aggravating factors. However, it also took into account Kim's nearly 30 years of service as a police officer and the six months he spent in custody following the initial ruling as mitigating circumstances.

The court also identified issues with the CIO's evidence collection procedures, stating that the CIO violated due process principles by failing to ensure the participation rights of the individual whose phone was seized.

It concluded that the legal intent to protect the rights of the individual whose property was seized was substantially compromised, leading to the rejection of the evidentiary value of some materials obtained from the phone.

The court dismissed charges against A and Kim's brother and acquaintances, who were also charged with bribery and violations of money laundering regulations, stating that the CIO lacked the authority to directly prosecute civilians who are not high-ranking officials or their families.

The court explained that the charges against A were invalid as they were brought by a CIO prosecutor who lacked the legal authority to do so.

The CIO expressed difficulty accepting the appeals court's ruling, which denied its authority to prosecute civilian bribers. Following the verdict, the CIO indicated the possibility of an appeal, stating, "The assertion that the CIO lacks the authority to prosecute bribers who are not high-ranking officials or their families is inconsistent with previous cases involving former senior prosecutor Kim Hyung-jun."

This case is notable as it involves the CIO's first prosecution of a bribery case against Kim Hyung-jun, who was charged alongside lawyer Park, who allegedly provided bribes. Although Park was not a high-ranking official or related to one, the court did not dispute the CIO's prosecutorial authority at that time. Both individuals were acquitted by the Supreme Court in April of last year.

The CIO stated, "We find it difficult to accept the ruling, which does not adequately reflect the essential nature of the relationship between bribery and bribers as necessary accomplices," adding that it will carefully review the ruling before deciding on an appeal.