Daegu Food Company-Related 'Former Senior Police Officers' Face First Trial... Intense Legal Battle Expected

Confidential and Personal Information Leak Allegations During Food Company Investigation
Prosecution Claims 'Investigation Cover-Up' vs Defendants Argue 'Does Not Meet Legal Criteria'

Baebonggil (58, Senior Superintendent, center), former Chief of the 1st Division of the Chungbuk Provincial Police Agency, and others appeared as defendants at the trial held at the Daegu District Court Seobu Branch on the morning of the 16th.

[Asia Economy Yeongnam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Park Dong-wook] Former senior officials at the Daegu Metropolitan Police Agency with the rank of Senior Superintendent, who were involved in the 'return recycling suspicion' case of a famous food company in the Daegu area, appeared side by side as defendants in the courtroom of the Daegu District Court Western Branch on the 16th.

This trial attracted attention inside and outside the police because it was initiated against completely unexpected figures who allegedly leaked information to the company, at a time when the food company, having confirmed that the case was an 'internal whistleblowing fabrication' by employees, was taking an aggressive stance by accusing the police of 'planned investigation' and 'biased investigation' and suing the investigation chief.

At the first hearing held under the presiding of Chief Judge Wi Ji-hyun of the Criminal Division 2, the most notable defendant was Bae Bong-gil (58, Senior Superintendent), former Deputy Commissioner of the Daegu Police Agency's 2nd Division. Defendant Bae worked as the direct superior of the investigation chief throughout the investigation process led by the investigation chief at the Daegu Police Agency into the food company, and was demoted to the Chungbuk Police Agency and suspended from duty immediately after being indicted on charges of leaking official secrets.

Defendant Bae is accused of leaking case details by saying, "There is additional testimony on that side (the whistleblower)," when asked about the progress of the investigation during a meeting with the representative of the food company's supplier (indicted in custody) at his office on February 10. In this regard, Bae's lawyer stated, "There was no fact of saying there was additional testimony (to the supplier representative)," but also predicted a legal dispute by adding, "Even if there was, this does not constitute an official secret."

Lee, former Deputy Commissioner of the Ulsan Metropolitan Police Agency's 1st Division, who seemed geographically unrelated to the food company case, also admitted to the acts described in the indictment but requested the court to review the legal validity of the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act. This defendant was promoted to Senior Superintendent and transferred to the Ulsan Police Agency after serving as the head of the criminal division at the Daegu Police Agency until the end of last year.

Lee's lawyer appealed, "It is true that he received information about the whistleblower from his former subordinate Superintendent A, but he never directly requested it and it cannot be seen that he received the messages with malicious intent."

In addition to these defendants, two other police officers, Superintendent A and Inspector B, who were also indicted, raised objections regarding the elements of the crimes and applicability of charges such as abuse of authority, obstruction of rights, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Regarding this case, the only supplier company representative C, who was indicted in custody on charges of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act, admitted the facts of the indictment but denied the charges, stating, "I did not receive any request to find out about the progress of the case in exchange for maintaining the plastic container supply transaction with the food company," and "Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is punishable only if economic benefits are obtained."

The lawyer of the food company representative, who was accused of instructing the supplier representative to find out the whistleblower's personal information (violation of the Personal Information Protection Act), argued, "There are claims that the statements were false or forged, so this was to verify the authenticity, not a request to suppress the investigation."

The second hearing related to this case is scheduled for December 4. Due to the large number of defendants and many disputed issues, the court decided to proceed with a preparatory hearing before the formal trial.

Meanwhile, the investigation by the Daegu Metropolitan Police Agency into the food company, where the 'return recycling suspicion' surfaced in February, caused a huge stir in the region as whistleblowers repeatedly retracted their statements during the investigation, claiming "it is not true," leading to fierce backlash from the food company accusing the police of 'biased investigation.'

On the day a media outlet reported the return recycling suspicion, the Daegu Food and Drug Administration and Dalseo District Office formed a joint investigation team and conducted an on-site inspection but found no issues. Moreover, it was revealed that the Daegu Seongseo Police Station, which first received the report, closed the internal investigation as 'no intelligence value,' raising questions about the background of the Daegu Metropolitan Police Agency's full-scale investigation.

Subsequently, on June 17, the Daegu Police Agency indicted the food company, and the food company has filed a complaint with the prosecution against three police officers, including the investigation chief, for leaking official secrets and dereliction of duty.

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