Kim Geon-hee’s Scandal: Why Did the Special Prosecutor’s Cases End in Acquittals?

On December 29 of last year, Special Prosecutor Min Jung Ki held a press conference at the KT Gwanghwamun Building West in Jongno-gu, Seoul, to announce the final investigation results concerning various allegations against Kim Keon Hee. [Photo credit: Newsis]

According to legal sources on the 10th, the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 26, presided over by Judge Lee Hyun Kyung, ruled on the case against Kim Ye Seong, known as Kim Keon Hee’s “housekeeper,” for embezzlement and breach of trust under the Specific Economic Crimes Act. The court found Kim not guilty on some counts and dismissed others.

Dismissals occur when a court determines that formal requirements were not met during the prosecution process, leading to a termination of proceedings without examining the merits of the case.

The court acquitted Kim of charges that he conspired with Jo Young Tak, CEO of IMS Mobility (Bimaika), to embezzle 2.43 billion KRW (approximately 1.82 million USD) from his shell company, InnoVest Korea, under the guise of a loan. It dismissed other embezzlement and breach of trust allegations, stating they fell under “personal embezzlement,” which was outside the special prosecutor’s investigative purview.

The court noted, “The investigation does not appear to stem from a connection with Kim Keon Hee and is unrelated to the investment funds, which were a key focus of the inquiry. The timeframe of the alleged offenses is also broad. It’s difficult to consider these as ‘related crimes’ under the special prosecutor law merely because the defendant is the same or the owning corporation is the embezzlement victim.”

This marks the third dismissal ruling for cases brought by the special prosecutor’s office investigating Kim Keon Hee. Previously, the court dismissed cases related to bribery involving a Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport official and evidence destruction charges against former Unification Church head Yoon Young Ho.

The Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 22, led by Judge Jo Hyung Woo, dismissed the case against a Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport official charged with bribery under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act. The court found it difficult to establish a connection between the bribery allegations against Kim Keon Hee and the Yangpyeong Expressway case, which was the focus of the special prosecutor’s investigation.

Similarly, the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 27, presided over by Judge Woo In Sung, dismissed evidence destruction charges against Yoon Young Ho, the former head of the Unification Church, during the first trial. The court indicated that the special prosecutor law did not anticipate the Unification Church’s involvement in political corruption or election interference.

On January 28, citizens watched the live broadcast of Kim Keon Hee’s first trial sentencing at Seoul Station in Yongsan-gu, Seoul. [Photo credit: Newsis]

The special prosecutor’s office is not only facing dismissals but also a series of not guilty verdicts in major cases. After investigating three primary allegations against Kim Keon Hee – involvement in manipulating Deutsche Motors’ stock prices, receiving bribes related to the Unification Church, and obtaining free public opinion surveys – the office indicted her. However, on January 28, the first trial court only found her guilty of a portion of the bribery charges related to the Unification Church, sentencing her to one year and eight months in prison.

The special prosecutor’s team had sought a total prison sentence of 15 years, along with a fine of 20 billion KRW (approximately 15 million USD) and a confiscation of about 948 million KRW (approximately 711,000 USD), but achieved far less than expected.

The court determined that some of the charges related to Deutsche Motors had already surpassed the statute of limitations, while for the remaining parts, it found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. The court ruled that the public opinion survey received from political broker Jung Tae Kyun could not be considered a financial benefit. The only guilty findings against Kim Keon Hee involved accepting one Chanel bag and one diamond necklace.

Former prosecutor Kim Sang Min, who was indicted for allegedly soliciting favors in exchange for a painting by artist Lee U-hwan worth over 100 million KRW (approximately 75,000 USD), also received a not guilty verdict the day before. However, the court found him guilty of violating campaign finance laws, sentencing him to six months in prison with a one-year probation.
The court stated that it could not find sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the former prosecutor directly purchased the painting and provided it to Kim Keon Hee.
As the not guilty and dismissal rulings continue, the special prosecutor’s office faces increasing scrutiny over allegations of inadequate investigations raised during the inquiry. The special prosecutor’s team has indicated plans to appeal, claiming the court misinterpreted legal principles regarding the scope of the investigation, but it remains uncertain whether the appellate court will overturn the initial judgments.
Moreover, according to documents submitted to National Assembly member Na Kyung Won of the People Power Party by the Kim Keon Hee special prosecutor’s office, the budget spent during the 180-day investigation period amounted to 8.9665 billion KRW (approximately 6.72 million USD). Considering the time it takes for ongoing first trial cases to progress to higher courts, the total budget is expected to increase, leading to concerns over waste of taxpayer money.
The outlook for the remaining cases currently under trial is also not promising.
Jo Young Tak, CEO of IMS Mobility, who is also implicated in the so-called “housekeeper gate,” is currently arguing for a dismissal of the charges. Lee Jong Ho, a former representative of Black Pearl Invest known to be close to Kim Keon Hee, has also stated that the special prosecutor’s charges of violating the attorney law are illegal based on separate investigation results.
Other cases involving Kim Keon Hee’s alleged illicit appointments, former President Yoon’s false information dissemination charges, and allegations against Seoul Mayor Oh Se Hoon regarding public opinion survey payments are also set for trial. The legal disputes surrounding the scope of the special prosecutor’s investigation and the burden of proof are expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
The second comprehensive special prosecutor, which inherited unresolved cases from the previous three special prosecutors (related to insurrection, Kim Keon Hee, and deceased Marines), may also face limitations in its scope of activities.
This situation arises as the special prosecutor’s investigation, which has lasted the longest and covered the widest range, has not resolved the complex issues, and the court has clearly conveyed its message to curb excessive investigations through its repeated dismissal rulings.
The second comprehensive special prosecutor must investigate allegations related to Yoon Suk Yeol and his wife’s involvement in nomination interference, benefits related to the Yangpyeong Expressway, involvement in the relocation of the presidential office, attempts to cover up investigations against Kim Keon Hee, and the private use of Kim Keon Hee’s secret phone, among others.