Former Lawmaker Hong Il-pyo Fined 10 Million Won for Illegal Political Fund Receipt Confirmed

Former Assemblyman Hong Il-pyo [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Former Future United Party (predecessor of the People Power Party) lawmaker Hong Ilpyo, who was indicted on charges of accepting illegal political funds, has been sentenced to a fine of 10 million won.

With this ruling finalized, former lawmaker Hong will be restricted from running for public office for five years under Article 19, Clause 1 and Article 18, Paragraph 1, Clause 3 of the Public Official Election Act. Additionally, under Article 57 of the Political Funds Act, he will be barred from appointment or employment as a national public official for five years.

On the morning of the 14th, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heunggu) upheld the lower court's ruling in the appeal trial of former lawmaker Hong, who was charged with violating the Political Funds Act, sentencing him to a fine of 10 million won and ordering the confiscation of approximately 19 million won.

Previously, former lawmaker Hong was prosecuted on charges of using about 19 million won as political funds by falsely making it appear that the secretary of his local office was employed as an advisor at an acquaintance's company from September 2013 to June of the following year, receiving the money under the pretense of wages.

The first and second trials found him guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 10 million won. The confiscation of approximately 19 million won was also ordered. The second trial court stated, "The secret acceptance of political funds is an act that can seriously undermine representative democracy," and added, "It is directly contrary to the legislative intent of the Political Funds Act, and the nature of the crime is not light."

In the appeal trial, former lawmaker Hong's side argued, "The prosecution's investigation of some suspects conducted on the same day was video-recorded not from the first but from the second session, and the video recordings were not sealed," claiming that the evidentiary validity of the second suspect interrogation record could not be recognized.

However, the Supreme Court did not accept this. The court stated, "Although the video recordings in this case were not sealed, the attached label bears the prosecutor's seal as the investigator, the signature and seal of the person being investigated, the hash value of the video recording is printed, and there is no sign of damage to the label," adding, "There are means or devices to guarantee the identity and integrity as the original video recording, which excludes suspicion of manipulation."

Furthermore, the court said, "Unless there are special circumstances, it is not necessary to video record the entire investigation process conducted on the same day," and added, "There are no special circumstances such as video recording only the investigation where confessions were induced through persuasion or threats, so it cannot be seen that the prosecution violated the method and procedure."

A Supreme Court official explained the significance of this ruling, stating, "It is meaningful in that it presented standards for determining whether unsealed video recordings can substantively prove the authenticity of interrogation records and whether the video recordings cover the entire investigation process."

Meanwhile, former lawmaker Hong was also charged with accepting an additional 20 million won in illegal political funds and falsifying accounting books, but both the first and second trials acquitted him of these charges.

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