Unusual Reasons for Rejection of Warrants for Park Young-su and Yang Jae-sik... '50 Billion Club' Investigation Hits a Snag

"Factual and Legal Aspects Leave Room for Dispute"
Another Halt Follows Gwak Sang-do's Acquittal on Bribery Charges

The arrest warrants requested by the prosecution for former special prosecutor Park Young-soo (71) and his aide Yang Jae-sik (57), who are accused of receiving bribes from private developers involved in the Daejang-dong project in exchange for assisting the business, were both dismissed on the 30th.

This effectively puts a brake on the prosecution's investigation, which aimed to secure Park's custody and continue probing the bribery allegations related to the apartment in Daejang-dong that his daughter purchased. In particular, the prosecution's plan to reorganize the investigation team and investigate other members of the so-called '50 Billion Club,' including former Prosecutor General Kim Soo-nam and former Supreme Court Justice Kwon Soon-il, has inevitably been disrupted.

Above all, the court's reasons for dismissing the warrants for the two individuals are noteworthy. The judge presiding over Park's warrant hearing stated, "There is room for dispute from factual and legal perspectives regarding the actual receipt of money." Similarly, the judge handling Yang's hearing said, "There appears to be room for dispute from factual and legal perspectives concerning certain parts of the criminal facts, including the actual receipt of money." Furthermore, the judge added, "It is difficult to see any risk that the suspect would destroy evidence or flee beyond the scope of exercising their right to defense."

Former Special Prosecutor Park Young-soo is leaving Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province, after his arrest warrant was dismissed in the early morning of the 30th.

Court: "Room for Dispute" and "No Risk of Evidence Destruction or Flight"... Points Out Lack of Proof on Actual Receipt of Money

Former special prosecutor Park is accused of receiving 800 million won on the charge of bribery under the Specific Economic Crimes Act, having promised a large sum of money in exchange for accommodating requests related to the consortium of private developers, including Nam Wook, while serving as chairman of the board at Woori Bank during the Daejang-dong development project.

The prosecution believes that Park, along with Yang, was promised benefits worth approximately 20 billion won and two detached houses from Nam and others between November and December 2014, related to consortium investments and the issuance of a letter of intent for credit by Woori Bank. However, the prosecution's assessment is that after Woori Bank's participation in the consortium was canceled, the agreed commission was reduced to 5 billion won.

Initially, Woori Bank planned to participate in the Seongnam-eui Tteul consortium but ultimately did not join, instead submitting a letter of intent for a project financing (PF) loan of 150 billion won.

Park is also accused of receiving 500 million won from Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management, as a bribe for facilitating the issuance of Woori Bank's letter of intent for credit, and 300 million won in cash from Nam in January 2015 as election funds for the Korean Bar Association presidential election.

Yang is accused of playing a practical role between Park and the private developers involved in Daejang-dong.

On the previous day, Yoo Chang-hoon, the chief judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, dismissed Park's arrest warrant in the early hours, stating, "Considering the testimonies of related parties, which are key evidence for the charges, and the court's examination results, there is room for dispute from factual and legal perspectives regarding the suspect's job relevance, the actual receipt of money, and the establishment of the promise to provide money. At this point, detaining the suspect would excessively restrict their right to defense, so it is difficult to recognize the appropriateness of detention at this stage."

Similarly, Lee Min-soo, the chief judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, dismissed Yang's arrest warrant, stating, "Based on the evidence revealed so far and the court's examination results, there appears to be room for dispute from factual and legal perspectives concerning certain parts of the criminal facts, including the actual receipt of money, necessitating the guarantee of the suspect's right to defense. Considering the suspect's occupation, attitude shown to investigative agencies and the court, the evidence collected so far, and other circumstances in the investigation records and statements from the suspect and their lawyer, it is difficult to see any risk of evidence destruction or flight beyond the scope of exercising the right to defense. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the appropriateness of detention at this stage."

Yang Jae-sik, former special prosecutor assistant and closest aide to Special Prosecutor Park Young-soo, is leaving Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province, after his arrest warrant was dismissed in the early morning of the 30th.

Judgment Finds Both Proof of Criminal Charges and Necessity of Detention Insufficient... Prosecution to 'Reapply for Warrants'

Article 70, Paragraph 1 of the current Criminal Procedure Act states, "The court may detain a defendant if there is reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed a crime and one of the following reasons applies," listing three grounds for detention: ▲ the defendant has no fixed residence, ▲ there is a risk of evidence destruction, and ▲ there is a risk of flight.

Paragraph 2 of the same article stipulates that "the court shall consider the seriousness of the crime, the risk of recidivism, and concerns about harm to victims and important witnesses when reviewing the grounds for detention under Paragraph 1."

Strictly speaking, the court's position is that "seriousness of the crime" is not a ground for detention. This is the most contentious point between the court and the prosecution regarding arrest warrants.

In other words, while the prosecution argues that "the more serious the crime, the higher the possibility of flight or evidence destruction, thus increasing the necessity of detention," the court holds that "the possibility of flight or evidence destruction cannot be substituted by the seriousness of the crime."

Historically, there was an attempt to amend the Criminal Procedure Act to include "seriousness of the crime" as grounds for detention, but this failed during the National Assembly's deliberations, which is also one of the arguments the court presents.

This explains why the court could dismiss the arrest warrants for Park and Yang despite the prosecution's suspicion that their charges are far from minor.

Notably, the court's dismissal reasons for both individuals included "room for dispute from factual and legal perspectives." Regarding Park, this means there is room for dispute over whether he actually received money from the private developers in Daejang-dong or merely promised to receive it, indicating insufficient proof of criminal charges.

Legally, the court also questioned Park's "job relevance" required to establish the bribery charge under the Specific Economic Crimes Act, which applies when an employee of a financial institution receives, demands, or promises money or other benefits related to their duties. Although a person without a status required for bribery, like a public official, can be an accomplice with someone who has such status, the court seemed to find room for dispute in this case.

Furthermore, in Yang's case, the court found no risk of evidence destruction or flight, which are decisive grounds for detention.

Typically, when the court dismisses a prosecution's arrest warrant emphasizing either that the criminal charges are proven but detention is unnecessary due to sufficient evidence already secured, or that there is no risk of evidence destruction or flight, the prosecution's investigative momentum is not significantly affected.

However, in this case, since the court pointed out insufficient proof of basic criminal elements and fundamental facts related to the receipt of money, the prosecution will inevitably face difficulties in reapplying for warrants without securing substantial additional evidence through supplementary investigations.

Immediately after the warrants were dismissed, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office issued a statement saying, "Based on the testimonies of multiple related parties and objective evidence supporting them, the receipt and promise of money in exchange for requests are sufficiently recognized, so it is difficult to accept the court's reasons for dismissing the warrants. We will review whether to reapply for arrest warrants through supplementary investigations."

Gwak Sang-do's 'Bribery' Acquittal Followed by Warrant Dismissal... Outlook for '50 Billion Club' Investigation Clouded

With the dismissal of the arrest warrant for former special prosecutor Park, whose charges among the '50 Billion Club' members suspected of receiving money from private developers in Daejang-dong were relatively concrete, the prosecution's prospects for investigating the remaining members of the '50 Billion Club' have also become uncertain.

The prosecution had already indicted the son of former lawmaker Gwak Sang-do, another '50 Billion Club' member, on the grounds that his severance pay and other benefits were bribes provided by the Daejang-dong group to Gwak. However, the court acquitted Gwak of bribery and mediation charges.

The court at that time pointed out, "It is difficult to see that defendant Gwak actually exerted influence over Hana Bank employees," and "It is difficult to see that defendant Gwak was informed of or involved in the Daejang-dong development project plan."

The court that dismissed the arrest warrants for Park and Yang also appeared to express skepticism about the prosecution's claim that the two received money in exchange for assisting the Daejang-dong group’s business. Following Gwak's acquittal in the first trial and the prosecution's failure to detain Park, it is expected that the prosecution's investigation into the '50 Billion Club' will struggle to gain momentum for the time being.

In particular, the prosecution's plan to secure Park's custody and then clarify the nature of the funds his daughter received from Hwacheon Daeyu has inevitably been disrupted.

Park's daughter reportedly borrowed 1.1 billion won from Hwacheon Daeyu and purchased an apartment in Daejang-dong owned by Hwacheon Daeyu in June 2021, earning about 800 million won in market price gains, totaling approximately 2.5 billion won in profits.

The prosecution planned to investigate further, viewing this money as the realization of the "50 billion won promise" Park allegedly received.

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