Supreme Court Confirms Guilt of Former Seodaemun-gu Mayor's Policy Advisor and Environment Director in 'Hiring Corruption' Case

No. 2 in District Office Acquitted in First Trial → Convicted in Second Trial

The guilt of the former policy advisor to the Seodaemun District Mayor, who exerted pressure to select a specific applicant by abusing his position during the recruitment process of fixed-term public officials, and the former director of the Seodaemun District Environmental Bureau, who manipulated interview scores to hire the favored applicant, has been confirmed.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) announced on the 17th that it upheld the original court rulings sentencing former Seodaemun District Mayor policy advisor Seo Mo, indicted for obstruction of official duties by deception and violation of the Local Public Officials Act, and former Seodaemun District Environmental Bureau Director Hwang Mo, indicted for obstruction of official duties by deception and violation of the Local Public Officials Act, to six months imprisonment and six months imprisonment with one year probation, respectively.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

Both individuals were prosecuted for manipulating applicants' scores to hire a specific candidate during the 2015 recruitment process for one fixed-term part-time public official in the environmental field.

According to the prosecution's charges, Seo, who worked as the policy advisor to then Seodaemun District Mayor Moon Seok-jin and was known as the 'second-in-command' at the Seodaemun District Office, repeatedly asked Hwang to ensure that his acquaintance A, who was working as an environmental instructor, would definitely be hired.

A, who had become acquainted with Seo through Seo's activities related to environmental and energy policies as a district council member, had been appointed as an assistant MP in the energy sector of the district office's regional comprehensive planning department one month before the announcement of the recruitment exam, based on Seo's recommendation.

When Seo reviewed A's resume at the time of recommending A as an assistant MP, he realized that although A had experience in the environmental field, A had graduated from the Department of Architecture and did not hold a degree in the environmental field, thus not meeting the eligibility criteria. Seo then told the department official who submitted the recruitment exam plan, "The job-related department is limited to environmental-related departments, and the scope of recognized experience in the field is too narrow, so it would be better to refer to Seoul City's related field announcements and revise the eligibility criteria." Despite opposition from the staff in charge, the eligibility requirements were relaxed to "persons with a bachelor's degree and more than two years of practical experience in the job field to be appointed."

Subsequently, Seo made hiring requests to Hwang, who was the chairperson and member of the interview panel, saying things like, "I hope you hire A this time," and "Please take good care of A."

Hwang, fearing severe reprimand or future personnel disadvantages if he did not comply with the request from Seo, who had a close relationship with then Mayor Moon Seok-jin, decided to pass A at all costs.

However, on the interview day, December 30, 2015, among the five interviewees, A scored an average of 82 points, while B scored 84 points, meaning B would pass and A, who ranked second, would fail. Upon learning this, Hwang received his interview score sheet from a subordinate in his office, lowered B's score from 59 to 47, and raised A's score from 93 to a perfect 100. As a result, A's average score rose to 83, making A first place and passing, while B, originally first, failed with an average score of 82.

The first trial court found Hwang guilty of obstruction of official duties by deception for manipulating scores and sentenced him to six months imprisonment with one year and six months probation. Additionally, Hwang was ordered to perform 40 hours of community service.

However, Seo, who requested A's hiring, was acquitted, with the court stating, "Based solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it cannot be said that this part of the charges is sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

The court cited that Hwang testified, "I committed the crime because the district mayor instructed me to hire A; if Seo had requested it alone without the mayor's involvement, I would not have complied," and that Hwang's statements regarding Seo's hiring request were inconsistent.

Furthermore, the court judged that Seo's alleged instruction to change the eligibility criteria to allow A to apply was not an unreasonable demand for relaxation of eligibility but merely a suggestion to refer to Seoul City's related field announcements.

Lastly, the court considered that, as the prosecution did not indict then Mayor Moon Seok-jin and suggested that Hwang might have misunderstood the mayor's remarks as a 'hiring order,' and given that the mayor and deputy mayor instructed Hwang to consult Seo on hiring matters, Hwang might have mistakenly perceived Seo's request as an 'unrefusable solicitation.'

However, the second trial court's judgment differed. While dismissing Hwang's appeal and the prosecution's appeal against Hwang, it accepted the prosecution's appeal against Seo, overturned the first trial's acquittal, and sentenced Seo to six months imprisonment.

The court stated, "It is highly unreasonable to maintain the first trial's judgment that Hwang's testimony that he received Seo's hiring request for A lacks credibility," and "Seo's testimony is credible, and based on that testimony, it can be sufficiently recognized that Seo requested Hwang to hire A in this recruitment exam."

The court reasoned that ▲ it is reasonable to infer that Hwang's criminal acts for a stranger A stemmed from instructions or requests from someone influential within the district office, and Hwang had no particular benefit in falsely accusing Seo as the requester; ▲ there was no motive or reason for Hwang to make false statements detrimental to Seo despite the risk of perjury charges; ▲ the partial changes in Hwang's testimony were due to memory limitations over more than four years and were merely corrections or supplements based on objective evidence, not enough to deny the credibility of the solicitation testimony.

The court further stated, "Although Hwang testified that he heard the hiring request for A from Seo at a meeting arranged by the district mayor's instruction and would not have complied if Seo had requested alone without the mayor's involvement, even according to Hwang's testimony, the explicit request to hire A in this recruitment exam was heard from Seo, not the mayor, and there is no evidence that the mayor knew A before the exam or conspired with Seo to hire A."

Additionally, the court pointed out, "There are multiple circumstances consistent with Hwang's specific and consistent testimony that Seo requested A's hiring, including Seo's considerable influence within the district office, the professional relationship between Seo and A, Seo's efforts to hire A within the district office, and Seo's attempt to destroy evidence."

The court continued, "The prosecution charged Seo as the main perpetrator of this hiring solicitation, considering that Seo either used the unaware district mayor as a tool during the hiring request or conspired with the mayor. However, the prosecution did not indict the mayor due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy with Seo and the possibility that the mayor was unknowingly used as a tool. The prosecution's indictment and non-indictment decisions and their grounds are not particularly irrational or lacking objective reasonableness."

Both parties appealed, but the Supreme Court found no problem with the second trial's judgment.

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