Supreme Court confirms 1-year prison sentence for President Yoon's mother-in-law in 'bank account balance forgery' case

The Court Also Denies Bail Request

Choi Eun-soon, the mother-in-law of President Yoon Seok-yeol, who was sentenced to imprisonment and detained in court in the second trial on charges including forgery of bank balance certificates, has been confirmed guilty.

Choi Eun-soon, mother-in-law of President Yoon Seok-yeol. [Image source=Yonhap News]

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) on the 15th upheld the original sentence of one year imprisonment in the final appeal trial against Choi, who was indicted on charges including forgery of private documents. Additionally, the court dismissed Choi's bail request submitted last month.

Choi was indicted on charges of forging balance certificates to make it appear that approximately 34.9 billion KRW was deposited in a savings bank four times between April 1 and October 11, 2013, during the process of purchasing land in Dochon-dong, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi Province.

She is also accused of colluding with business partner Ahn Mo to file a lawsuit on August 7, 2013, demanding the return of the deposit related to the Dochon-dong land, submitting forged balance certificates worth about 10 billion KRW to the court.

The first trial court sentenced Choi to one year imprisonment, stating, "The amount on the forged balance certificates is huge, the crimes were committed repeatedly over multiple occasions, and the forged balance certificates were submitted as evidence, undermining the fairness of the trial. Also, it appears that substantial profits were gained by purchasing real estate under a borrowed name." However, she was not detained in court. This was considering that she had been released on bail during the appeal process of a separate trial for ‘fraudulent receipt of nursing care benefits.’ Later, Choi was acquitted by the Supreme Court on the fraudulent nursing care benefits charges.

On the other hand, the second trial court dismissed the appeal, stating, "There is no reason to accept the defendant's appeal after reviewing all circumstances," and ordered detention in court, saying, "The right to defense was sufficiently guaranteed up to the appeal trial, and the nature of the crime is very serious." The Supreme Court also agreed with the second trial court's judgment.