Supreme Court Confirms Suspended Prison Sentence for Choi Kang-wook on 'Obstruction of Business' Charge... Loss of Parliamentary Seat

Grand Bench: "Practical Occupants Have Administrative Disposition Rights Including Voluntary Submission"
Justices Min Yusuk, Lee Heunggu, and Oh Kyungmi: "Original Owners Also Have Participation Rights"

Choi Kang-wook, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea who was prosecuted for issuing a ‘false internship certificate’ to the son of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, has been sentenced to a suspended prison term. As a result, Choi has lost his parliamentary seat and will be unable to run in next year’s general election.

Democratic Party lawmaker Choi Kang-wook, who was indicted on charges of falsifying an internship verification letter for the son of former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk, is seen leaving the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, after the appellate trial verdict on the afternoon of the 18th.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

The Supreme Court en banc panel (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) held a sentencing hearing on the 18th at the Supreme Court courtroom in Seocho-gu, Seoul, for Choi, who was charged with obstruction of business, and upheld the lower court’s ruling of eight months in prison with a two-year suspension.

Choi was indicted on charges of issuing a false internship certificate in October 2017 to Cho’s son, Cho Mo, while working as a lawyer at the law firm Cheongmaek, thereby obstructing the graduate school admissions process to which Cho Mo had applied.

The en banc panel recognized the evidentiary validity of the internship certificate issued by Choi during his time as a lawyer to Cho’s son, as well as the text messages exchanged between former Dongyang University professor Jeong Gyeong-shim, Cho’s wife, and Choi, Cho Mo, and others, which were stored on a PC.

This PC was used by former Professor Jeong at her home and was instructed to be hidden by her asset manager Kim Kyung-rok. When investigations into admission fraud charges against Jeong and her family intensified, Jeong handed over the PC used at home by herself and her family to Kim and instructed him to hide it. After Kim concealed the PC, he voluntarily submitted it to the prosecution when he was named a suspect in evidence concealment.

During the trial, a key issue was whether, when Kim voluntarily submitted the PC involved in this case, the actual users such as former Professor Jeong should have been guaranteed the right to participate in the forensic process. Both the first and second trials ruled that there was no need to guarantee participation rights to Jeong and others, sentencing Choi to eight months in prison with a two-year suspension.

The Supreme Court also agreed with the lower courts’ judgment. The en banc panel stated, “It cannot be considered that participation rights must be guaranteed to former Professor Jeong and others during the voluntary submission of the PC,” and “The lower court’s recognition of the evidentiary validity of the stored information on the PC in this case is appropriate.”

It further ruled, “Considering the circumstances of the concealment and voluntary submission of the PC as recorded, and the extent of involvement by former Professor Jeong and Kim during the process, it can be seen that Kim was the person who realistically possessed the PC at the time of voluntary submission, and that Kim was in a position to effectively hold and exercise the management and disposal rights over the electronically stored information saved on the PC.”

Moreover, “Former Professor Jeong handed over the PC to Kim with the intent to conceal the very existence of the PC, which was done to hide or sever the apparent connection between herself and the PC and the stored electronic information,” and “This can be seen as an expression of intention to relinquish or transfer the control and management rights over the PC to Kim, resulting in Kim effectively holding and exercising exclusive control and management rights over the PC and its electronic information.”

On the other hand, Justices Min Yu-sook, Lee Heung-gu, and Oh Kyung-mi dissented, stating, “When a person who conceals evidence voluntarily submits an information storage medium owned and managed by the principal who instructed the concealment to the investigative agency, if the principal is deemed to have a substantial interest in protecting privacy and freedom from infringement during the search, copying, or printing of electronic information stored on the medium, the principal should also be guaranteed participation rights,” and expressed an opinion to remand the case.

Originally, Choi’s case was assigned to the Supreme Court’s First Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) in September last year and was under review. However, it was first revealed this June that the case was suddenly referred to the en banc panel, though the exact timing of the referral was not disclosed. If the panel of four justices fails to reach an agreement, the case can be escalated to the en banc panel.

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