Police Do Not Prosecute Lee Jun-seok on Sexual Bribery Allegations... Remaining Investigation Issues?

Remaining Case of Accusation for Evidence Tampering and False Accusation
Key Issue: Whether Sexual Bribery Occurred

Former People Power Party leader Lee Jun-seok is expressing his position as he attends the hearing on the injunction to suspend the effectiveness of the People Power Party's party rules held at the Seoul Southern District Court in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul on the 14th. Photo by National Assembly Press Photographers Group

[Asia Economy reporters Seongpil Cho and Gyumin Oh] Although the police concluded no indictment regarding the sexual bribery allegations against former People Power Party leader Lee Jun-seok, investigations continue into the suspicion of evidence tampering instruction and the case where Lee sued the “Garo Sero Research Institute” (Gaseyeon) and was counter-sued by former leader Kim Sung-jin’s side for false accusation. Since these charges hinge on whether sexual bribery actually occurred, the police are expected to focus their investigative efforts on clarifying this issue going forward.

According to the police on the 21st, the Anti-Corruption and Public Crime Investigation Unit of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency is examining allegations related to the complaint against former leader Lee, specifically that Lee instructed former party leader Kim Cheol-geun’s political secretary to have an AICIST employee write a “70 million won investment memorandum” in exchange for a confirmation letter stating “no sexual bribery occurred.” The case in which Kim’s legal representative, lawyer Kang Shin-up, filed a false accusation complaint against Lee is also under review.

Both charges presuppose a determination of whether sexual bribery took place. In the case of evidence tampering instruction, it must be proven that Kim’s secretary committed evidence tampering, with the key issue being “what evidence was attempted to be destroyed.” For the false accusation charge, the existence of sexual bribery must be examined to determine whether the crime is established. Professor Jung Woong-seok of Seokyeong University’s Department of Law (President of the Korean Criminal Procedure Law Association) said, “Regarding the evidence tampering instruction charge, (Kim’s secretary claims) the 70 million won was given for investment purposes, while the other side claims it was evidence tampering, so the crucial point is what the evidence in question is,” adding, “For the false accusation charge, whether sexual bribery is a false fact or not determines whether the crime is established.”

Regarding the two complaints, the police summoned Mr. Jang, who was in charge of protocol for former leader Kim, as a witness in April and reportedly re-interviewed him on the 19th. Mr. Jang is said to have testified that he wrote a “false” confirmation letter stating no sexual bribery occurred at Kim’s secretary’s request. Meanwhile, Kim’s secretary stated during witness questioning that the investment memorandum was written without any compensation. The police applied for a search warrant for Kim’s secretary’s mobile phone, but the court rejected the request.

The police decided not to indict on the day before yesterday regarding the sexual bribery allegations against former leader Lee, citing the imminent statute of limitations on charges such as bribery solicitation. The statute of limitations for the Sexual Traffic Punishment Act related to sexual bribery in 2013 had passed five years, leading to a “no prosecution” decision. The bribery solicitation charges up to January 2015, the period Kim is alleged to have committed sexual bribery, were also dismissed for the same reason. Regarding the Chuseok gift received on September 24, 2015, the police judged that “it is difficult to see it as having a quid pro quo or intent to solicit bribery for the purpose of maintaining relations.”

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