Civil Servant Receiving Hundreds of Millions from Mistress via Mother-in-Law's Account Found Not Guilty of Anti-Graft Act

"The money received is based on a pure affectionate relationship"

A public official who was sentenced to a fine for receiving and using a large sum of money sent from his mistress through bank accounts under the names of his mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and younger sibling was given a reduced sentence on appeal.

The Criminal Appeals Division 4 of the Daejeon District Court (Presiding Judge Gu Chang-mo) overturned the original sentence of a 40 million won fine against Mr. A (57), who was indicted for violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (the Anti-Graft Act) and the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, and instead sentenced him to a 10 million won fine. The court also acquitted him of the charges related to the Anti-Graft Act.

Daejeon District Court Photo by Yonhap News

Mr. A, a senior official in a government ministry, was charged with receiving about 79 million won in living expenses from his mistress through bank accounts of relatives including his mother-in-law from mid-June 2017 to the end of that year, and receiving 431 million won in five installments until the end of 2021.

He was also accused of violating the Anti-Graft Act by receiving money exceeding 1 million won per transaction or 3 million won per fiscal year from the same person. Additionally, he was charged with violating the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality by using other people’s accounts to hide income other than his salary during public official asset registration.

In the first trial, the court stated, "As a public official, receiving a large sum from a mistress raises a high possibility of moral condemnation," and sentenced him to a 40 million won fine and ordered the confiscation of 415.45 million won, considering that although the amount was larger than what is normally exchanged in a typical romantic relationship, they were in a de facto marital relationship and had promised to marry in the future.

Mr. A appealed this decision. His defense argued that he only used borrowed-name accounts to conceal the extramarital relationship and did not commit any illegal acts, and that since he and his mistress were in a de facto marital relationship, the Anti-Graft Act did not apply.

In the appeal trial, the court ruled, "Although the defendant’s polygamous relationship may be subject to moral criticism, the money received from the mistress was based on a purely affectionate relationship and should be evaluated similarly to money received in a legally recognized marital relationship," and judged that Mr. A’s violation of the Anti-Graft Act was not established.

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