Former Chairman Kim Bong-hyun's 'Prison Letter' Raises Credibility Questions Among Investigators

"Did Not Hire Prosecutor-Turned Lawyer A," Contradicting Former Chairman Kim's Statement

Letter Raises Trust Issues Over Illegal Circumstances
All Parties Involved Deny Allegations as 'Baseless'
Some Call for "Further Verification"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] New testimony has emerged suggesting that the contents of the 'prison letter' by former Star Mobility Chairman Kim Bong-hyun, who exposed lobbying involving the political sphere and the prosecution, are difficult to trust.

On the 19th, a representative from the investigative agency that handled Kim’s embezzlement case at Suwon Passenger Transport in April stated in a phone interview with this publication, "At the time of the investigation, Kim’s lawyer was indeed Attorney A, who is a former prosecutor." The representative added, "Kim had appointed several lawyers at the time, among whom Attorney A was a prominent figure."

Attorney A is depicted in Kim’s prison letter (statement) as someone who participated in lobbying prosecutors and advised that the prosecution wanted statements unfavorable to ruling party figures. However, in May, when explaining the situation, Kim specifically noted that "Attorney A is not the appointed lawyer." Following the publication of Attorney A’s statement on the 16th, he refuted this by saying the facts were incorrect. Attorney A claimed that when Kim was transferred to the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office for investigation in early May, "I was his lawyer, and the payment was also reported." In response, Kim issued a second statement reiterating that the lawyer was not officially appointed.

The dispute over whether Attorney A was officially appointed appears to hinge on whether Attorney A violated the Attorney-at-Law Act. According to Kim’s statement, there are numerous violations, but if Attorney A’s version is correct, the illegal elements disappear. Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act stipulates that "a lawyer cannot represent or act on a case without submitting a letter of appointment or power of attorney to the court or investigative agency." Violating this provision is punishable under Article 113 of the same law by imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 10 million won.

Kim also claimed in his statement that "Attorney A used his former position to persuade cooperation with the prosecution’s investigation targeting the political sphere." The applicable legal provision is Article 110, Clause 1 of the same law, which states, "If a judge, prosecutor, or other public official of a judicial or investigative agency receives or agrees to receive money or other benefits under the pretext of providing or socializing, they shall be punished by imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of up to 30 million won." If Kim’s claim is true, Attorney A would have violated this provision and face inevitable punishment. Attorney A denied this, stating, "I never gave advice with such intent."

If Attorney A can prove the contract and payment details, it may indicate that Kim intentionally included false information about Attorney A in his statement. This raises questions about how much of the illegal circumstances described in Kim’s statement can be trusted.

The credibility controversy surrounding Kim’s statement does not end there. Kim included in his statement allegations such as ▲ entertaining three active prosecutors ▲ lobbying involving an opposition party politician who is a former chief prosecutor at Woori Bank ▲ a bail proposal in exchange for cooperation in the investigation of former Blue House Senior Secretary for Political Affairs Kang Ki-jung. However, the parties mentioned in the statement have denied these claims as "groundless." Following the start of the Ministry of Justice’s inspection based on Kim’s statement, the prosecution has launched an investigation into allegations of prosecutor misconduct.

Within the legal community, voices are calling for further verification of Kim’s claims. There is also the possibility that Kim, facing a disadvantage in the ongoing Lime case trial, initiated the expos? to change the narrative. A lawyer in Seocho-dong commented, "There are defendants or suspects who keep cards up their sleeves in case investigations or trials do not proceed as they expect."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.