[Law & Story] Problems in the Prosecution's Investigation of First Lady Kim Keon-hee

Replacement of Investigation Leadership, On-site Interrogation, and Bypassing the Prosecutor General
An Investigation Process That Did Not Appear Fair
Inappropriateness Beyond the Validity of the Conclusion

Seokjin Choi, Legal Affairs Reporter

The prosecution decided not to indict First Lady Kim Keon-hee, wife of President Yoon Suk-yeol, and her mother-in-law Choi Eun-soon on the 17th, who had been under investigation for alleged involvement in the ‘Deutsche Motors stock manipulation’ case.

While it is true that Kim’s account was used in the stock manipulation, the prosecution concluded that she was merely exploited by former chairman Kwon Oh-soo, who was the CEO of a listed company, and the stock manipulators, and that she had no implied intent regarding the stock manipulation.

There are differences between Kim and Son, the financier who was recently found guilty of aiding and abetting in the second trial, in terms of the circumstances of stock purchases, investment expertise, and relationships with the main manipulators. More importantly, for aiding and abetting to be recognized, there must be intent not only to assist the principal offender but also intent regarding the principal’s crime. The prosecution stated that there is neither testimony nor evidence supporting that Kim was aware of the market manipulation.

The prosecution held a briefing and provided a detailed explanation of the reasons for non-indictment through a 1 hour and 30 minute presentation (PT). They also answered reporters’ questions more kindly than ever for 2 hours and 30 minutes. It is unusual for the prosecution to elaborate extensively on reasons for non-indictment rather than indictment, and this briefing doubled the previous record of 2 hours set during the luxury bag incident on the 2nd.

The clich? statement that “the judgment was made solely based on legal principles and evidence without any political considerations” did not resonate, but the confession of the investigation chief that “the investigation was conducted under the premise that all investigation records could be disclosed and someone might review them” was somewhat convincing. It is clear that this case is one where verification of the investigation process could occur at any time and in any form, whether through the passage of a special prosecutor law or a change in administration leading to reinvestigation.

Our criminal procedure law explicitly stipulates the prosecutor’s exclusive right to prosecute and discretionary prosecution. Only prosecutors, as state officials, can indict suspects (Article 246), and even if there is evidence of a crime, prosecutors have the legal authority (Article 247) to decide not to indict considering factors such as motive and circumstances after the crime. No matter how fierce the public criticism or how fearful the backlash, if the prosecutor is not confident in securing a conviction, it is appropriate not to indict.

So why was such a lengthy explanation necessary for the non-indictment of Kim? It is because the investigation process into Kim did not appear fair.

The Deutsche Motors case took a staggering 4 years and 6 months from the April 2020 complaint to reach a conclusion regarding Kim. Political considerations were involved from the time when, during the Moon Jae-in administration, Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office chiefs Lee Sung-yoon and Lee Jung-soo successively led the investigation, prosecuting Chairman Kwon and other related parties but delaying action on Kim. After a search warrant for Kim related to the Kobana Contents investigation was dismissed once, the prosecution did not attempt any further compulsory investigations.

When former Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok formed a dedicated investigation team for the luxury bag bribery case and ordered a swift and strict investigation, and then Seoul Central District Prosecutor Song Kyung-ho attempted to conduct a face-to-face interrogation of Kim, the replacement of the investigation leadership without consulting the Prosecutor General revealed President Yoon’s unfiltered intention that “no matter the criticism, it absolutely must not happen.”

It was also problematic that Kim was not publicly summoned under the pretext of security issues, bypassing the Prosecutor General, and instead was investigated through a prosecutor’s visit. Former presidents such as Roh Moo-hyun, Lee Myung-bak, and Park Geun-hye, as well as sons of former presidents Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung, were all publicly summoned and investigated by the prosecution.

Regardless of the correctness of the conclusion, there were several inappropriate aspects in the prosecution’s investigation process regarding Kim.