Kim Bong-hyun Requests Recusal of Court, Trial Postponed

Former Star Mobility Chairman Kim Bong-hyun Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Jeong Dong-hoon] The trial schedule was postponed as Kim Bong-hyun, the former chairman of Star Mobility and a key figure in the Lime Asset Management (Lime) scandal that caused a redemption suspension crisis worth about 1.6 trillion won, requested a change of the presiding judge at the court.

According to the court on the 11th, the Criminal Division 13 of the Seoul Southern District Court (Chief Judge Shin Hyuk-jae) was scheduled to proceed with the continued trial of former Chairman Kim and others that morning, but the date was changed after Kim’s side filed a motion to disqualify the presiding judge the day before.

Former Chairman Kim is on trial for embezzling funds from Suwon Passenger Transport and the Veterans Association Mutual Aid Society, and for lobbying a former Blue House administrative officer to leak inspection data related to Lime from the Financial Supervisory Service. Recently, he was additionally indicted on charges of violating the Kim Young-ran Act (Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and Graft) in connection with allegations of 'providing alcohol entertainment to prosecutors.'

According to the Criminal Procedure Act, a defendant may file a motion to disqualify the presiding judge if there is concern that the judge may conduct an unfair trial. Upon receipt of such a motion, the court must suspend the ongoing trial and first review the motion. The review is conducted by another division of the same court, and if the reasons are deemed valid, the presiding judge is replaced. However, if the motion is clearly judged to be for delaying the trial, the existing presiding judge may dismiss the motion without review by another division.

Former Chairman Kim filed an appeal with the court the day before against the denial of bail and the issuance of an additional arrest warrant. He also submitted a motion to disqualify the presiding judge. In the motion, he argued that the presiding judge violated the defendant’s fundamental rights by issuing 'split arrest warrants' for reasons that cannot be accepted, and unfairly rejected bail with electronic monitoring conditions.

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