"Kim Geon-hee's Butler" Kim Ye-seong Acquitted Again in Appeal; Special Prosecutor's Appeal Dismissed

Court: "Special Prosecutor Failed to Prove Kim Geon-hee's Involvement in Oasis"


Scope of Investigation Also Not Recognized

In the appeals trial of Kim Ye-seong, widely known as "Kim Geon-hee's butler," the court upheld the original verdict of not guilty and dismissal of charges, identical to the first trial.

Yonhap News Agency

On April 29, the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 8 (Presiding Judge Kim Seongsoo) dismissed the special prosecutor's appeal against Kim, who had been indicted on charges including embezzlement under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, and delivered the same ruling as the lower court.

Previously, Kim had been put on trial for allegedly selling shares of IMS Mobility, held under the borrowed-name corporation Innovest Korea, to IMS investors for 4.6 billion won in 2023, and then falsely lending 2.43 billion won from the proceeds to CEO Cho Youngtak, thereby embezzling company funds.

On February 1, the court of first instance found Kim not guilty, stating that since CEO Cho had successfully raised investment and generated economic benefits for the corporation, it was difficult to define Kim's act of distributing a portion of the proceeds as embezzlement. Additionally, the court dismissed the charges concerning Kim's personal and family-related misconduct, ruling that such allegations were not subject to investigation under the Special Prosecutor Act.

Regarding the scope of the special prosecutor's investigation, the appellate panel noted, "The special prosecutor was unable to establish through investigation that Kim Geon-hee was involved in the establishment of Oasis or the management of investment funds," and emphasized that it is clear the facts of this case do not fall under the scope of investigation stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Special Prosecutor Act.

In evaluating whether this case constitutes a "related crime" under the Special Prosecutor Act, the court stated, "A comprehensive assessment of the similarity of the offense, purpose, temporal and spatial relevance, and whether there is common evidence is necessary." The court then concluded, "The facts of this indictment differ in terms of timing and the legal interest harmed, are unrelated to the suspicions at issue, and show no recognized connection." The court affirmed the previous ruling dismissing the charges as appropriate.

The court also maintained the not guilty verdict on the key charge of embezzling 2.43 billion won from Innovest funds. The panel stated, "CEO Cho Youngtak was able to establish Oasis by borrowing 1.5 billion won, which in turn allowed the shares held in Innovest's name to be valued at 4.6 billion won. Thus, providing a portion of the funds to CEO Cho, who increased Innovest's asset value, cannot be construed as an act of unlawful appropriation."

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