Judge Ji Gwi-yeon of the Seoul Northern District Court has been charged with violating the Anti-Corruption Law in connection with allegations of room salon entertainment. During the investigation, he reportedly denied most of the charges.
A spokesperson for the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) stated on September 4 that Judge Ji denied the allegations during questioning. The spokesperson added, "He said, 'I don't remember well' or 'I might have fallen asleep due to alcohol,' and claimed, 'I don't think I drank for an extended period with the lawyers at the bar.'"
When asked if he denied the amount charged, the spokesperson said, "He stated that it was 'not within his area' regarding the amount, which contradicts his previous claim of having 'had one or two drinks and left.'"
The CIO also investigated whether Judge Ji had a history of being reported as intoxicated in the vicinity of the bar, but found no significant circumstances.
Regarding the decision not to charge the accompanying lawyers, the spokesperson explained, "The unique structure of the CIO law means we have no investigative authority over those lawyers, who are private citizens and not public officials."
The spokesperson added, "We need to receive a complaint or have a special reason to initiate an investigation, but we lack the authority to do so, and we are reviewing the direction of the case."
Additionally, the spokesperson noted, "The lawyers were also uncooperative during the investigation, with some refusing to testify."
On the same day, the CIO charged Judge Ji without detention for violating the Anti-Corruption Law.
Judge Ji is accused of visiting a reservation-only bar in Cheongdam-dong, Gangnam, with two lawyer acquaintances in August 2013, where he allegedly had drinks and had them pay a total of 4.09 million won. The CIO determined that Judge Ji's share of the bill amounted to 1.36 million won when divided among the three.
The Anti-Corruption Law stipulates that public officials who receive goods or entertainment worth more than 1 million won from the same individual in a single instance are subject to punishment, regardless of job-relatedness or reciprocity.
Previously, Judge Ji presided over the first trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol in a rebellion case while working at the Seoul Central District Court last year. However, during the review of the former president's release from custody, he calculated the detention period in hours rather than days, leading to the release of the former president. The then-opposition Democratic Party criticized Judge Ji harshly, and in May of the same year, allegations of his involvement in room salon entertainment were raised, along with the release of related photographs. Subsequently, civic groups filed a complaint against Judge Ji with the CIO for violating the Anti-Corruption Law.
The CIO began its investigation and confirmed that the payment records from the bar matched the taxi usage records of Judge Ji. They also secured financial transaction records of related individuals and conducted summons investigations before charging Judge Ji without detention.
The CIO investigated the potential for quid pro quo arrangements between Judge Ji and the lawyers but concluded that there was no evidence of such relationships based solely on vague assumptions, leading to a decision not to charge for violations related to receiving entertainment.
Following the indictment, Judge Ji's legal representative issued a statement strongly criticizing the CIO.
Attorney Kim Hyung-seok of SP Law Firm stated, "Judge Ji briefly attended a gathering with his juniors and left immediately. The relationship with his juniors and the circumstances of the gathering are particularly important, as none of the juniors have worked on cases related to clients' duties in the past ten years."
He continued, "Even if we assume, as the CIO claims, that my client stayed for the entire gathering, the total value of the gifts received from the same individual does not exceed 1 million won, and thus the legal criteria for violating the Anti-Corruption Law are not met."
He expressed regret over the CIO's unreasonable factual recognition and legal application, stating, "We will engage sincerely in the upcoming trial process."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.