Hyun Woo-jin, a prominent math instructor accused of illegally obtaining college entrance exam questions from current teachers and paying them over 400 million won, was acquitted in a first-instance ruling. The court determined that the payments made by Hyun were not prohibited under the anti-corruption law, as they were deemed to be legitimate compensation for the value of the questions rather than illicit gifts.
On August 26, Judge Lee Jae-wook of the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of Hyun, who was charged with violating the anti-corruption law. Two teachers who provided the questions and a representative from a textbook development company were also acquitted.
Hyun submitted a notice of absence and did not appear in court. The prosecution had previously sought a one-year prison sentence for each defendant.
From March 2020 to May 2023, Hyun was accused of paying a total of 346 million won to two current teachers in exchange for math questions to be used in his own textbooks. He also faced allegations of transferring 75 million won to an account under the name of another teacher's spouse. The total amount involved in the charges was 421 million won.
The teachers who provided the questions were identified as having experience as writers for EBS textbooks or as members of the college entrance exam and mock exam committees.
The key issue in the trial was whether the payments made by Hyun constituted 'prohibited gifts' under the anti-corruption law. This law prohibits public officials from receiving gifts exceeding 1 million won in a single instance or 3 million won in a fiscal year from the same individual, regardless of the relevance to their duties. However, payments made as part of legitimate private transactions are exempt from penalties.
The court concluded that the money paid by Hyun was in accordance with a contract for buying and selling questions, qualifying as a legitimate private transaction under the law.
The court noted, "Even if the transaction had the form of a private deal, if the value of the compensation significantly exceeded the value of the service provided, it could be seen as merely a formality of debt fulfillment. However, if the compensation corresponds to the value provided by the public officials, it is excluded from the prohibited gifts."
Hyun's defense argued that he obtained questions not only from current teachers but also through public solicitations from professional companies and the general public. The amounts paid to these companies were similar to or even greater than those paid to the teachers, and payments were made only for questions that were actually adopted in the textbooks.
The average payment per question was around 200,000 won for mock exam materials and about 100,000 won for general textbooks. The fact that the teachers did not submit the questions for exams at their own schools was also taken into account. The court found it difficult to view the payments as bribes simply because the individuals were current teachers or had experience as exam committee members.
The prosecution argued that the teachers sold the questions without obtaining permission from their respective institutions, rendering the transactions illegal. However, the court ruled that when applying the exceptions under the anti-corruption law, the legality of the private transaction itself could not be considered.
The court stated that violations of dual employment obligations should be judged separately under relevant laws, and that the mere potential for the transaction to raise doubts about the fairness of public duties does not constitute a violation of the anti-corruption law.
Judge Lee emphasized, "The law is the minimum standard of morality, and criminal punishment is the last resort for resolving issues. Even if there are inappropriate aspects to a public official's actions, it is neither feasible nor desirable to criminally punish all of them."
He added, "To prevent the spread of the immoral logic that it is acceptable as long as one does not face criminal punishment, it is necessary to maintain a realm of morality and ethics."
After the ruling, the defense attorney for the teachers stated, "It seems that the investigation agency viewed the case too broadly and made excessive charges under the name of an education cartel. We are grateful to the court for making a balanced judgment."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.