Suspicions of Hiring Corruption and Frivolous Lawsuits: Jo Guk's Brother Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison by the Supreme Court on the 30th

[Asia Economy Reporter Bae Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on Cho Kwon, the younger brother of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, who was indicted for recruitment corruption and false lawsuits related to Woongdong Academy. More than two years after being brought to trial in November 2019, the second trial sentenced him to three years in prison, which is three times longer than the first trial.

On the 30th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seonsu) will announce the ruling in the appeal trial against Cho, who is charged with obstruction of business and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust), among other charges.

Between 2016 and 2017, Cho served as the secretary-general of Woongdong Academy and is accused of receiving a total of 180 million KRW from applicants through acquaintances during the recruitment process for full-time teachers, and leaking written exam questions and answer sheets.

He is also accused of causing damage to the school corporation by filing false lawsuits against Woongdong Academy, creating construction contracts and bond transfer contracts related to Woongdong Middle School in October 2006, and securing tens of billions of won in bonds. Additionally, he is charged with evading compulsory execution by avoiding debts that Woongdong Academy had to repay to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and instructing acquaintances to move and destroy false lawsuit documents and materials related to apartment name trusts stored at his residence in preparation for a prosecution raid in August 2019.

In the first trial, only Cho’s obstruction of business related to recruitment corruption was recognized as guilty. Regarding the false lawsuits, the court ruled there was no evidence to prove intent to commit breach of trust by wrongfully diverting Woongdong Academy’s assets, and the element of “property damage” required for breach of trust was not established.

The court at the time explained, “At most, it is merely an indirect preparatory means to complete the risk arising from the preceding act into an actual infringement of legal interests,” and “The defendant’s claim for payment of the transferred bond against Woongdong Academy is an act that can naturally be expected from the perspective of the person who acquired the bond, and it cannot be seen as unrelated or adding any unforeseeable new risk.”

However, the appellate court’s judgment differed. It found that Cho’s intent to cause damage to the school corporation through sham lawsuits was proven. Although the damage did not materialize, the court recognized the charge of attempted breach of trust instead of breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes applied by the prosecution.

In particular, the second trial sentenced Cho to three years in prison, three times longer than the first trial, including charges of attempted breach of trust and aiding and abetting related to recruitment corruption. Both the prosecution and Cho appealed the second trial’s verdict to the Supreme Court.

The main issues in the Supreme Court’s ruling include ▲the judgment of breach of trust in the course of duty regarding breach of duty and property damage ▲whether filing a second false lawsuit to interrupt the statute of limitations on the judgment bond after the first false lawsuit constitutes a non-punishable subsequent act ▲and the interpretation of “interfering with another person’s employment for profit” under Article 9 of the Labor Standards Act.

Meanwhile, among the cases related to allegations against the former Minister Cho Kuk’s family, only the case involving his fifth cousin Cho Beomdong and Kim Kyungrok, who acted as the asset manager for Cho Kuk and his wife, has been finalized by the Supreme Court. The appeal trial of former professor Jung Kyungshim, Cho Kuk’s wife, is currently under review by the Supreme Court.

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