Park Chan-gu, Kumho Petrochemical Chairman, 'Employment Disapproval' Effectively Defeated... Supreme Court Rules "Probation Period Included in Employment Restriction Period"

1st Trial "Employment Disapproval Justified" → 2nd Trial "Not Within Employment Restriction Period"
Supreme Court "2-Year Employment Restriction from End of Probation Period"

Park Chan-gu, Chairman of Kumho Petrochemical

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] Park Chan-gu, chairman of Kumho Petrochemical, who filed a lawsuit challenging the Ministry of Justice's decision to impose a 'employment restriction order' during his probation period, has effectively lost the case. This ruling is the first to consider the probation period as part of the 'employment restriction period.'

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Noh Tae-ak) on the 27th overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial of the lawsuit filed against the Ministry of Justice, which requested the cancellation of the employment disapproval, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Chairman Park was sentenced to three years in prison with a five-year probation in 2018 for causing damage to the company by lending company funds to his son at a low interest rate without collateral (breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes). In March 2019, during the probation period, he was appointed as the CEO of Kumho Petrochemical.

Park applied for employment approval, but the Ministry of Justice issued a disapproval in 2020. Dissatisfied with this, Park filed an administrative lawsuit in June of the same year.

Article 14 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes stipulates that a person convicted of embezzlement or breach of trust involving 500 million won or more cannot be employed by financial companies, institutions wholly or partially funded by the state or local governments, institutions receiving contributions or subsidies, and enterprises closely related to the criminal acts for which they were convicted. It also sets the employment restriction period as 'two years from the date the probation period of imprisonment ends.'

The first trial considered the employment restriction period to start from the 'date the guilty verdict is finalized' and the expiration of the employment restriction to be 'two years from the end of the probation period of imprisonment.' In contrast, the second trial interpreted the employment restriction period as starting from the 'end of the probation period of imprisonment' and the expiration of the restriction as 'two years from that date.' Since the probation period was not included in the employment restriction period, it concluded that Chairman Park was not subject to the employment restriction during that time.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. The Supreme Court ruled that "it is reasonable to interpret the probation period as included in the employment restriction period."

The court stated, "The Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes prohibits employment in enterprises closely related to the criminal acts for which a guilty verdict has been rendered, and defines the employment restriction period as 'five years from the date the imprisonment is completed or confirmed not to be executed,' 'two years from the end of the probation period of imprisonment,' and 'the period of suspended sentence of imprisonment.'

Furthermore, "Considering the content and structure of the provisions, legislative intent, and purpose, it is reasonable to interpret that 'two years from the end of the probation period of imprisonment' stipulates the expiration of the employment restriction period, and that the probation period is included in the employment restriction period," the court ruled.

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