Kim Man-bae's Arrest Warrant Dismissed... Prosecution's Recording Credibility Lacked Verification (Comprehensive)

Kim Man-bae, the key figure in the preferential treatment allegations related to the Daejang-dong development project in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, and the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, is appearing at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the 14th to undergo a pre-arrest detention hearing. Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The arrest warrant for Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management (Hwacheon Daeyu), was dismissed on the 14th. With the dismissal of the warrant for the key suspect in the Daejang-dong development preferential treatment and lobbying allegations case, it is inevitable that the prosecution’s investigation will face setbacks.

Moon Seong-gwan, the chief judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, dismissed Kim’s warrant around 11:20 p.m. that day. Judge Moon stated, “While there is a significant need to guarantee the suspect’s right to defense, it is difficult to see that the necessity for detention has been sufficiently demonstrated.” After the pre-arrest suspect hearing (warrant review) in the afternoon, Kim, who was waiting at Seoul Detention Center, was immediately released.

Earlier, the dedicated investigation team at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (led by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim Tae-hoon) filed a detention warrant for Kim on the 12th. The charges listed in the warrant included bribery, breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, and embezzlement. The investigation team applied bribery charges on the grounds that Kim promised Yoo Dong-gyu, former Planning Director of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation (currently imprisoned), 25% (about 70 billion KRW) of the profits from the 2015 Daejang-dong development and received preferential treatment during the project selection process. The 5 billion KRW paid as severance pay to Byung-chae, son of Assemblyman Kwak Sang-do, who was formerly a senior secretary at the Blue House, was also judged as a bribe. The warrant also included charges that Kim, in collusion with former Director Yoo, caused losses of about 110 billion KRW to Seongnam Urban Development Corporation by arranging shareholder agreements so that excess profits from the Daejang-dong development would go to Hwacheon Daeyu. Additionally, 5.5 billion KRW out of the 47.3 billion KRW borrowed by Kim from Hwacheon Daeyu, whose use was unconfirmed, was specified as embezzlement.

During the warrant review, the prosecution argued that since former Director Yoo was already detained on charges of breach of trust and receiving 500 million KRW in bribes from Kim, the charges against Kim were sufficiently substantiated. It was also reported that the prosecution emphasized the necessity of detention, citing that despite ample evidence and witness testimonies, Kim denied the charges. The prosecution attempted to play the key evidence, the recorded file by accountant Jung Young-hak, but due to objections from the defense, they explained the summary of the transcript based on prepared presentation materials instead.

On the other hand, Kim’s defense argued that the prosecution infringed on the suspect’s right to defense by filing the warrant based solely on the transcript without playing the recording. Regarding each charge, they contended that the breach of trust was hastily concluded without clear criteria for calculating the amount and that the charges did not hold when compared to similar cases. For the bribery charges, they denied ever promising to give 70 billion KRW to former Director Yoo and claimed that the severance pay given to Assemblyman Kwak’s son followed internal procedures and thus did not constitute a charge.

Judge Moon sided with Kim’s defense. He stated that the credibility of the transcript, which was the basis for the investigation team’s detention request, was insufficient, and that it had not yet been sufficiently proven whether there was collusion with former Director Yoo regarding the deletion of the excess profit recovery clause. With the court’s dismissal of the warrant, the investigation team’s plan to secure Kim’s custody and continue the investigation into the ‘upper echelons’ has been halted, making setbacks in the investigation inevitable. The investigation team is expected to choose between reapplying for the warrant after supplementary investigation or proceeding with a non-custodial indictment and proving the charges during the trial process.

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