The Fair Trade Commission has acknowledged errors in its investigation of Jo Min's cosmetics company, Serolabs, the daughter of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk. The commission has initiated a re-examination of the case, but it remains unclear whether it will be able to obtain the necessary records of modifications made to sales pages across various platforms to determine any violations of e-commerce law.
According to a report from Aju Economy on October 20, the Fair Trade Commission is revisiting allegations of e-commerce law violations against Jo Min's company. Previously, the commission imposed a fine of 500,000 won on Serolabs for violations related to its sales page on the Shinsegae Internet Duty-Free Shop. However, it ruled no violations occurred on other platforms, such as Coupang, WeMakePrice, and Gmarket, based solely on materials submitted by Jo Min's team.
After a whistleblower submitted evidence from a month prior to Jo Min's materials, the commission began its re-investigation. A comparison of the two sets of documents revealed that information missing from the sales page in October of last year was included in Jo Min's November submission. This raises concerns that the supplementary materials provided by Jo Min's team may have been used to argue that no violations occurred at the time of the initial report.
To clarify these issues, it is essential to compare the original sales page with the upload and modification records. However, the Fair Trade Commission did not secure or review these records during the initial investigation, and nearly a year has passed since the alleged violations.
The preservation period for records of displays and advertisements under the e-commerce law is six months. While this period does not apply uniformly across all platforms, it is uncertain how much of the necessary documentation remains available. If some records have been lost, it may be challenging to conduct a thorough re-investigation.
While the Fair Trade Commission has admitted to its investigative errors, it has not provided clarity on how it will verify the authenticity of the materials submitted by Jo Min's team or the timing of any modifications if it fails to obtain the original records. Currently, the whistleblower has submitted additional materials that contradict Jo Min's claims. This raises questions about why the commission did not secure and compare the necessary documents during its investigation.
The need for these records was highlighted from the outset of the initial report. Aju Economy obtained the complaint, which included links to pages where Jo Min's company was found to be in violation, along with a request for the original records to be secured in anticipation of potential modifications. Additionally, police investigation results indicating that Jo Min's company had violated e-commerce laws were attached.
Despite this, the Fair Trade Commission accepted only the explanations provided by Jo Min's team without verifying the upload and modification histories.
A Fair Trade Commission official told Aju Economy, "Jo Min's team claimed there were no violations, and we did not pursue further investigations, which was a mistake." However, the official added that the materials provided by Jo Min's team appeared credible, and the complaint materials were deemed insufficient.
Nonetheless, the claim that the complaint materials were inadequate contradicts the whistleblower's assertion that they were never asked to supplement their report. The whistleblower argues that they submitted additional materials independently but that these were not adequately considered in the investigation.
The whistleblower also pointed out that there were procedures in place for the commission to request additional information if the initial complaint was deemed insufficient. They stated, "It is difficult to accept that the commission is now attributing the investigation's shortcomings to the whistleblower, claiming the initial materials were inadequate without giving us a chance to supplement them."
Aju Economy has inquired why the Fair Trade Commission did not request additional information if it found the complaint materials lacking and why it did not investigate the request for original records specified in the initial report. However, the commission has not provided specific answers to these questions.
The necessity for original record verification is underscored by the differences in modification authority across platforms. The Shinsegae Internet Duty-Free Shop, which received a fine, had a structure that prevented Jo Min's team from altering the display content, while other platforms, where no violations were found, allowed the company to make changes directly.
Given that the company could modify the content, it was crucial to verify whether the submitted screens were the same as those at the time of the complaint. However, the Fair Trade Commission based its no-violation ruling solely on the materials submitted by Jo Min's team without reviewing the modification histories.
The re-investigation will need to confirm not only whether modifications occurred and when but also what explanations were provided by Jo Min's team when submitting materials. Presenting a modified page as if it were in its original state is a different issue. The circumstances surrounding the submission of materials and the explanations provided at that time must be clarified to determine whether false documentation was submitted.
In response to inquiries from Aju Economy regarding the modifications and supplements to the submitted materials, Jo Min's team stated, "We have faithfully presented the facts as we understand them and submitted relevant materials during the Fair Trade Commission's investigation, and we have also provided thorough explanations during the re-investigation." However, they declined to provide specific details regarding modifications or supplements.
Jo Min's legal representatives also stated in a conversation with Aju Economy that they confirmed relevant documents from Jo Min's company around November last year, but they could not verify whether any modifications or supplements related to the violation allegations were made. They did not provide specific answers regarding whether they assisted in the submission of materials to the Fair Trade Commission.
Jo Min's claims about the progress of the re-investigation also differ from the Fair Trade Commission's account. On October 15, Jo Min stated on social media that she had completed the re-investigation, but the commission told Aju Economy that the case was received around the 15th and that Jo Min had not yet been notified of the re-investigation.
If the falsity of the submitted materials is confirmed, it could lead to criminal liability issues. Song Seung-hwan, a representative attorney at Solugen Law Office and a former prosecutor, explained, "If someone deceives a public official by submitting forged or altered documents, it could constitute obstruction of justice through deception."
Meanwhile, the Fair Trade Commission has not clarified its stance on what actions it will take if intentional submission of false materials is confirmed or whether it will review the responsibilities of the initial investigation team. While it has acknowledged investigative errors, explanations regarding the circumstances and subsequent responses remain insufficient. Additionally, if the commission failed to verify the original records despite receiving a request and did not provide an opportunity for supplementation due to a lack of complaint materials, it may be difficult to evade responsibility for a flawed investigation simply by initiating a late re-investigation.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.