A special investigation into allegations surrounding First Lady Kim Gun-hee has resulted in a series of setbacks for prosecutors, with multiple cases dismissed or ending in acquittals. The investigation, which was the longest and involved the most personnel of any special counsel in South Korean history, has faced criticism for overreach and a failure to substantiate key claims.
Critics allege the investigation appeared predetermined to bring charges, even as simultaneously failing to gather sufficient evidence or build a strong legal foundation for its cases. The outcome could as well impact a second, broader special investigation currently underway.
Special Counsel Investigation Faces Three Consecutive Dismissals
‘김건희 집사’ 김예성 씨가 인천국제공항에서 민중기 특별검사팀에 체포된 뒤 광화문 사무실로 압송되고 있다. 영종도=박종민 기자
Seoul Central District Court ruled partially in favor of and partially dismissed charges against Kim Ye-seong, often referred to as Kim Gun-hee’s “aide,” in a case involving embezzlement and breach of trust.
The court stated that the investigation did not appear to stem from any connection to Kim Gun-hee, was unrelated to the key investment at the center of the allegations and involved a broad timeframe for the alleged offenses. “The fact that the defendant is the same, or that a company owned by the defendant is the victim of the embezzlement, is not enough to qualify as a ‘related crime’ under the Special Counsel Act,” the court said.
This marks the third time a case brought by the special counsel has been dismissed. On January 22, a court dismissed charges against a National Land and Transportation Ministry official accused of bribery in connection with a highway route change, marking the first dismissal in the three major special counsel cases.
A dismissal occurs when prosecutors file charges that lack proper legal procedure, leading to the case being closed without a full examination of the facts.
In the highway case, the court found “no reasonable connection” between the allegations of preferential treatment regarding the highway route and the Special Counsel Act. The special counsel had discovered a large sum of cash during a search of the ministry official and subsequently pursued individual bribery charges. Still, no one higher up, including members of the First Lady’s family or then-Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Won Hee-ryong, were indicted in connection with the highway allegations.
A partial dismissal was also issued in the case against Yoon Young-ho, a former official with the Unification Church, who was accused of soliciting favors from Kim Gun-hee. The court ruled that obtaining police investigative information regarding a gambling trip by Hak Ja Han, the leader of the Unification Church, and attempting to destroy evidence was not within the scope of the Special Counsel Act.
The special counsel has appealed the dismissals, arguing for a broad interpretation of “reasonable connection” within the Special Counsel Act, citing the intent of the legislature when establishing previous special counsel investigations.
However, this argument has been criticized as a repetition of past prosecutorial logic, suggesting that aggressive investigations are justified when pursuing “major evils.” Some argue that such an approach necessitates extensive, “dusting-off” style investigations to pressure uncooperative suspects.
A former prosecutor stated, “In light of the need to reflect on investigative and prosecutorial excesses that infringe on human rights, it is questionable why such reflection is lacking in the special counsel investigation. The special counsel should have been more cautious, considering the pressure it places on suspects and witnesses.”
Failure to Prove Key Allegations Undermines Investigation
사진공동취재단·구글 AI 스튜디오 캡처
The Kim Gun-hee special investigation has been plagued by a series of acquittals and dismissals. On February 8, Kim Ye-seong received a partial dismissal and a full acquittal on charges where the investigation was deemed lawful, with the court finding “no proof of the crime.”
On the same day, in a separate courtroom, the court acquitted Kim Sang-min, a former prosecutor, of charges related to violating the Improper Solicitation and Bribery Act. Kim was accused of receiving an expensive painting by Lee Woo-hwan at the behest of Kim Gun-hee and seeking political favors in return.
The special counsel’s main argument centered on the fact that a phone call between Kim Gun-hee and Kim Sang-min coincided with the purchase of the painting and that the painting was found in the same bag as jewelry previously linked to the First Lady.
However, the Seoul Central District Court stated, “In this case, without direct evidence, the special counsel failed to prove the key elements of the charges, namely that Kim Sang-min directly purchased the painting and provided it to Kim Gun-hee.”
The court also examined Kim Sang-min’s substantial debt, noting a negative bank balance of approximately $260,000. The court determined that Kim Jin-woo, Kim Gun-hee’s brother, was more likely to have had the financial means to purchase the painting, and rejected Kim Sang-min’s claim that he had purchased it on his brother’s behalf.
Last month, the court acquitted Kim Gun-hee of charges related to stock manipulation at Deutsch Motors and political funding violations linked to Myung Tae-kyun. Critics have pointed out that the special counsel’s decision to prosecute as the primary perpetrator, despite a Supreme Court ruling recognizing the role of a “backer” in a similar stock manipulation case, was questionable.
Regarding allegations of receiving free polling data from Myung Tae-kyun, the court found it difficult to conclude that the presidential couple alone benefited from the arrangement and stated that “while suspicion remains, there is no proof of the crime.” Some have argued that the special counsel should have pursued charges of obstruction of business against the People Power Party, given the nature of the alleged illicit transaction.
The various allegations surrounding Kim Gun-hee could have set a precedent for punishing political corruption, but the repeated dismissals and acquittals have deprived the cases of proper legal interpretation and may have inadvertently provided guidance on the boundaries between legal and illegal conduct.
For example, Kim Sang-min argued that the Lee Woo-hwan painting was a forgery and had no market value, rendering the alleged solicitation impossible. However, the dismissal prevented any court ruling on this argument.
Second Comprehensive Special Investigation Faces Challenges
2차 종합특검에 임명된 법무법인 지평 소속 권창영 특검이 6일 서울 중구 소속 법률사무소로 출근해 취재진의 질문을 경청하고 있다. 연합뉴스
The second comprehensive special investigation, which has taken over unresolved issues from the three previous special counsel investigations, may also face limitations. The court’s repeated dismissals signal a reluctance to condone overzealous investigations and reaffirm that even in cases of strong public suspicion, a conviction requires sufficient evidence and legal basis.
The second special counsel is tasked with investigating allegations including the presidential couple’s alleged involvement in election interference, the highway route change, involvement in the relocation of the presidential office, alleged attempts to obstruct investigations, and the private leverage of encrypted messaging apps by Kim Gun-hee.
Specifically, the allegations of election interference, the highway route change, and the bribery charges against Myung Tae-kyun and Kim Young-sun have all resulted in acquittals. The lack of cooperation from figures like former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon during the first special counsel investigation raises questions about whether the second special counsel can uncover recent evidence and present a viable case in court.
