[Exclusive] Large Expenses on Lawyer Fees Despite 'No Problem' Response [Leaking Donations]⑥

Confirmed Not Guilty in 2017, Attorney Fees Spent This May
Election Commission: "No Issue as Reelected Lawmaker's Case Dates Back to First Term"
Professor Lee Jun-han: "Legislation Needed for Checks and Oversight"

Editor's NoteThe reason for abolishing district party organizations in the past was due to illegal political funds. Recently, the two major parties have been pushing for the revival of district parties. The prerequisite for the revival of district parties is transparent use of political funds. What is the actual situation? Asia Economy requested information disclosure from the Central Election Commission and regional election commissions and secured six months' worth of accounting reports before the expiration of the terms of 144 members of the 21st National Assembly. These individuals are now former lawmakers. Based on the secured data, we prioritized verification items by examining the appropriateness of expenditure purposes and usage locations. We confirmed with the parties involved and the election commissions, and also conducted on-site reporting. We also uncovered the reality that election commissions do not properly verify accounting reports. We focus on verifying and reporting on the use of sponsorship funds by lawmakers near the end of their terms. ① Spending millions of won on office supplies at a kimchi factory logistics warehouse ② Using funds for meals at Gangnam wine bars, hotels, and famous restaurants... 'Meetings = Gourmet tours?' ③ Retirement pay is illegal... 'Retirement consolation money' is legal ④ Large-scale holiday gifts to fellow lawmakers with political funds ⑤ Spending 10 million won 10 days before term expiration and going on a solo trip to the U.S. ⑥ Large expenditures on attorney fees despite the Election Commission's 'No problem' response

It has been confirmed that some 21st National Assembly members covered attorney fees for cases in which they were acquitted during their 20th National Assembly term, as well as attorney fees incurred during lawsuits between candidates in the 22nd National Assembly election, using sponsorship donations near the end of their terms.

According to the "Accounting Reports of National Assembly Members Whose Terms Expired in the 21st Assembly," obtained through information disclosure from the Election Commission, former lawmaker Park Seong-jung spent a total of 134.5 million won on attorney fees from his sponsorship donation account between May 14 and 21, about a month after losing the April 10 general election.

Specifically, on May 14, he deposited 30 million won to a law firm as attorney fees for 2016-2017. Three days later, on the 17th, he paid 33 million won to the Gwanghwamun branch office of another law firm and 11 million won to a legal office. On the 20th of the same month, he paid 27.5 million won and 11 million won respectively to law firms, and the next day, he deposited 22 million won again to a law firm.

Previously, Park was prosecuted for allegedly falsely claiming via phone calls to party members that he ranked first in a public opinion poll during the Saenuri Party's internal primary for Seocho-eul National Assembly candidate in January-February 2016, and for sending promotional materials containing false claims that he had attracted the Samsung R&D Research Center to Umyeon-dong during his tenure as Seocho District Mayor in February-March of the same year. The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Jo Jae-yeon) acquitted him in November 2017, ruling that the false claim about ranking first in the poll lacked intent and possibility of dissemination, and that the claim regarding the Samsung R&D Research Center was based on actual efforts made by Park.

This issue arose during the 20th National Assembly election process and was settled by a Supreme Court ruling during Park's 20th term. However, the attorney fees were paid with sponsorship donations during the late period of the 21st National Assembly term. Park explained, "I received an authoritative interpretation from the Election Commission that election sponsorship funds could be used for attorney fees related to the acquitted case. After being elected to the 21st National Assembly following the 20th, I just left it as is and settled it after losing the 22nd National Assembly election." He added, "There are also large amounts allocated as special party dues to the Gyeonggi Provincial Party, so this is not a case of simply clearing out sponsorship funds."

There was also a lawmaker who used sponsorship funds for attorney fees to file complaints against rival candidates during this election process. According to the accounting report of former lawmaker Choi In-ho submitted to the Busan Saha District Election Commission, 3.3 million won was paid as an advance attorney fee from the sponsorship donation account on April 18, and 2.2 million won as the balance on May 8 to a law firm.

During the April 10 National Assembly election, former lawmaker Choi and Lee Seong-gwon, the People Power Party candidate (elected to the 22nd National Assembly), engaged in a fierce battle of accusations and counter-accusations in Busan's Saha District, a key battleground in the Nakdong River Belt. Choi's side explained that they filed a complaint against Lee for election fraud and spreading false information, and thus received legal counsel and attorney services. Choi stated, "I confirmed with the Election Commission that there was no problem using attorney fees and paid the attorney fees from the sponsorship donation."

The Political Funds Act does not stipulate that sponsorship funds can be used for lawmakers' litigation costs. So how is it possible to spend attorney fees from sponsorship funds sent by supporters for smooth legislative activities? It is due to the Election Commission's authoritative interpretation. The Election Commission views that for incumbent lawmakers acquitted of charges related to violations of the Public Official Election Act or the Political Funds Act, paying attorney fees related to lawsuits involving other candidates from sponsorship funds is not problematic. An Election Commission official said, "We consider winning acquittal in lawsuits or filing complaints against other candidates as political activities. We review the validity by receiving related documents such as complaints, attorney engagement contracts, and appointment letters."

However, there are criticisms that it is inappropriate to cover litigation costs with sponsorship funds sent to support lawmakers' smooth legislative activities. There are also criticisms that the Election Commission effectively neglects dragging political disputes from Yeouido (political sphere) to Seocho-dong (prosecutors and courts). Professor Lee Jun-han of Incheon National University's Department of Political Science and Diplomacy said, "Supporters send sponsorship funds to help lawmakers become workers who contribute to legislation and the community, but if voters learn that the funds are used for personal legal expenses, they might want their donations back." He added, "Legislative measures are needed, but lawmakers are not legislating. Continuous monitoring by the media and civic groups is necessary."