Journalist
Kwon Kyu-hong
spikekwon@ajunews.com
-
Special counsel seeks 20 years for Park Sung-jae over martial law role, alleged Kim Keon-hee favor Special counsel prosecutors on Sunday sought a 20-year prison term for Park Sung-jae, a former justice minister on trial for allegedly taking part in the Dec. 3 martial law episode and acting on a request tied to an investigation involving first lady Kim Keon-hee. The team led by special counsel Cho Eun-seok asked the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 33, presided over by Judge Lee Jin-kwan, to sentence Park to 20 years in prison on charges including playing a key role in an insurrection and abuse of power. In closing arguments, the special counsel team described Park as a “legal technician who destroys the law,” arguing that he knew the emergency martial law declared by Yoon Suk Yeol lacked constitutional requirements but still offered ideas to give it the appearance of legality and mislead the public. Prosecutors said Park’s actions immediately after the declaration — moving to the Justice Ministry complex in Gwacheon and ordering an emergency standby for the travel-ban team, reviewing the dispatch of prosecutors to a joint investigation headquarters, and checking prison capacity — amounted to concrete steps to carry out the alleged insurrection. They said the measures were meant to isolate resisting opponents and process them through the justice system, adding that Park “turned the Justice Ministry overnight into an instrument for executing an insurrection.” On the allegation of collusion involving the first lady, prosecutors said Park accepted what they called a directive-like request from the president’s spouse, a private citizen, and exercised law-enforcement authority arbitrarily. “This was not communication but active collusion,” they said. They urged the court to impose a severe sentence, saying it must “send a warning to those who destroy the law in the name of the law.” Park has denied the charges, saying he carried out normal duties under relevant laws. The first-trial verdict has drawn public attention because the case involves what prosecutors described as an unprecedented justice minister accused of joining an insurrection. According to the special counsel’s investigation, Park is accused of sequentially joining Yoon’s alleged insurrection after Yoon declared emergency martial law on Dec. 3, 2024. Prosecutors say Park convened a meeting of senior officials at the Justice Ministry, ordered staff responsible for travel bans to report to work, and directed reviews of sending prosecutors to a joint investigation headquarters and checking prison capacity. He is also accused of having the ministry’s prosecution bureau draft an “abuse of authority document” containing arguments to justify martial law shortly after it was lifted. Park is also accused of ordering staff to confirm details after receiving a Telegram message from Kim last May asking him to determine the progress of an investigation. The allegation arose after then-Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok instructed the formation of an investigative team over suspicions that Kim received a luxury bag. Separately, the special counsel team sought a three-year prison term for Lee Wan-kyu, a former head of the Korea Legislation Research Institute, who was indicted for perjury before the National Assembly under the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly. Lee is accused of falsely testifying that there was no discussion of martial law at a post-lifting “safe house meeting.” Lee told the court the gathering was merely social, but prosecutors argued that, amid a grave political situation in which a presidential impeachment bill had been introduced, key aides meeting while carrying stacks of documents amounted to a countermeasure session to develop arguments to justify martial law. They also said Lee deliberately committed perjury by reducing the number of attendees in his testimony from five to four.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-27 19:33:20 -
Yoon Suk Yeol’s Appeal Trial Opens; Court Says Constitutional Challenge Won’t Halt Proceedings Yoon Suk Yeol, who was sentenced to life in prison in a first trial on charges of leading an insurrection after declaring the Dec. 3 martial law, began his appeal in earnest along with other key defendants tied to the decree. On Monday at 2 p.m., the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 12-1, with Judges Lee Seung-cheol, Cho Jin-gu and Kim Min-a, held the first pretrial hearing in the second trial for Yoon and seven senior military and police officials involved at the time of the martial law declaration. A pretrial hearing is held ahead of a formal trial to organize positions and discuss plans for presenting evidence, and defendants are not required to attend. Yoon and other main defendants did not appear. Only Yoon Seung-young, former head of planning and coordination at the National Police Agency’s investigation bureau, and Mok Hyun-tae, former chief of the National Assembly security unit, attended in person. The hearing featured a clash over defense requests for a constitutional review and the special prosecutor’s bid to add evidence. At the outset, attorney Lee Ha-sang, who represents former Minister Kim, disclosed that the defense had filed a request for constitutional review and asked the court to suspend proceedings. Lee argued that “the current composition of the court itself is unconstitutional and unfair,” and said the trial should be paused until the Constitutional Court rules. The panel said the request was submitted only on the 20th and it could not reach an immediate conclusion, but made clear it would not stop the proceedings on that basis. It said it would decide the constitutional issue “as soon as possible,” while proceeding with the scheduled pretrial hearing and denying Yoon’s request to change the date. The special prosecutor’s team, including Assistant Special Prosecutor Lee Chang-gyu, appeared in force and laid out its plan for the appeal. The team said it would focus on clarifying alleged advance planning that was less clear in the first trial. It said it would use a notebook attributed to Noh Sang-won that was examined by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office appraisal unit, along with testimony from appraisers, to argue the martial law declaration was a carefully planned insurrection. The special prosecutor said the defense had broadly refused to consent to evidence in the first trial, citing legal misunderstandings, calling that a sign of “misunderstanding” of appellate procedure. It added it would submit additional video evidence and filings related to impeachment evidence. Seeking to prevent delays, it asked the court to move quickly, saying questioning of defendants should, if possible, be completed in a single session. Yoon’s lawyers, however, argued the first ruling misread the facts. They said police and military movements during the deployment to the National Assembly were not aimed at insurrection, and sought to call presidential office aides as witnesses, including former senior secretary for civil affairs Kim Joo-hyun, former spokesperson Lee Do-woon and former policy chief Sung Tae-yoon, to explain the situation in detail. On the alleged blockade of the National Assembly, the defense said it would call a series of witnesses to dispute whether there was collusion with former National Police Agency Commissioner Cho Ji-ho, including Interior and Safety Minister Lee Sang-min, Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Choi Sang-mok, former Defense Security Command chief Yeo In-hyung and former third deputy director of the National Intelligence Service Baek Jong-wook. Lawyers for former Minister Kim Yong-hyun also strongly objected, arguing the indictment should be dismissed because the entity responsible for investigation and prosecution was unclear, raising possible violations of the Prosecutors’ Office Act. The special prosecutor asked the court to reject the defense witness requests, saying the figures had already been sufficiently examined in the first trial or related impeachment proceedings and that the purpose was clearly to delay the case. The defense countered that the first ruling relied on speculation unfavorable to the defendants and that cross-examination was essential. With the sides at odds, the panel said witness examinations on appeal are limited under criminal procedure rules to matters omitted from the first trial without gross negligence or to testimony that is indispensable. It ordered both sides to submit written explanations by next week’s morning detailing the purpose and necessity of their evidence requests. After hearing both sides, the court said it would coordinate plans for examining evidence involving defendants including Cho and Yoon, and decide whether to admit impeachment-related evidence after reviewing filings. It then set May 7 as the first formal appellate hearing date. 2026-04-27 16:54:21 -
Justice Minister Jeong Seong-ho urges prosecutors to confront past abuses, avoid 'delayed justice' Justice Minister Jeong Seong-ho sharply criticized investigations carried out when Yoon Suk Yeol led the prosecution, urging prosecutors to reflect and change and warning against repeating “delayed justice.” In a Facebook post on the 26th, Jeong noted that the National Assembly recently selected members of the third Truth and Reconciliation Commission, saying preparations for its launch were complete and calling on the Justice Ministry and prosecutors to take a hard look at themselves. Jeong wrote that under the “Framework Act on Clearing Up Past Incidents for Truth and Reconciliation,” promulgated and put into force Feb. 5, the Assembly last Thursday elected 10 commissioners recommended by the legislature, completing the steps needed to start the third commission. He said the Justice Ministry and prosecutors “should not hesitate to reflect and change” in line with public demands to address “the errors and pain of the times.” He said that since taking office, the Justice Ministry and prosecutors have actively acknowledged state responsibility in cases brought by victims and bereaved families of past state violence, including by giving up appeals in damages suits or supporting retrials. Correcting past prosecutorial wrongdoing, he said, is also part of a prosecutor’s role. Still, Jeong said the legal maxim often attributed to English jurist Edward Coke — “justice delayed is justice denied” — weighs heavily. He offered an apology on behalf of the state to judicial victims and their families who, he said, suffered for a long time under the stigma of being labeled criminals. Jeong said prosecutors face public criticism that Yoon, described as a former head of the prosecution, ignored political neutrality, moved directly into political power and, throughout his time in office, actively helped remove his political opponents. Jeong cited investigative practices revealed during a parliamentary probe into political cases, including “hundreds” of search-and-seizure operations, “more than 100” summonses of defendants, and permits allowing witnesses to enter to assist those summoned. As someone with more than 30 years in the legal field, Jeong said, such conduct is “hard to excuse.” He said a prosecutor’s duty is to realize justice by pursuing the truth, and that observing due process is both a tool to prevent bias from distorting the truth and a constitutional requirement to protect citizens’ basic rights. If there is strong suspicion that prosecutors failed to follow due process, he said, prosecutors should investigate, uncover the truth and correct it to achieve justice. Jeong said he sympathizes with the sense of loss and defeat felt by prosecutors who, he said, have faced a situation akin to organizational dismantlement because of the wrongdoing of some “political prosecutors.” But, he added, “we cannot stay here,” and prosecutors must also empathize with the public anger and the suffering of those affected under the previous administration because they are “prosecutors for the people,” the sovereign. Jeong concluded that the Justice Ministry and prosecutors must not repeat “delayed justice,” and should confront and correct not only the mistakes of authoritarian governments decades ago but also wrongdoing that occurred more recently. If there were past wrongs, he said, they must be fully revealed and cut off. However painful, he added, pursuing truth and realizing justice are the foundation of prosecutors’ duty and existence, and the prosecution must be reborn as a guardian of justice.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-26 17:39:08 -
Justice Ministry Probes Incheon Textile Plant After Reported Assault on Bangladeshi Worker The Justice Ministry said it has conducted an on-site inspection of a textile manufacturer in Incheon after a reported assault on a foreign worker and will consider administrative sanctions. According to the ministry, police received a report on April 24 that a Korean employee assaulted a Bangladeshi national at a textile plant in Gajwa-dong, Seo-gu, Incheon. The ministry’s Immigration and Foreign Policy Headquarters said its task force for protecting migrants’ rights visited the site with the Incheon Immigration Office and interviewed the victim. The headquarters said it will soon review possible measures based on the extent of any legal violations by the employer, including restrictions on employing foreign nationals and limits on proposals to invite foreign workers. It also plans to discuss support for the victim through the Foreigners’ Human Rights Protection and Rights Promotion Council, a public-private review body. The ministry said it will provide integrated counseling through its Crime Victim One-Stop Solution Center, psychological support through a Smile Center, and financial assistance such as living expenses, along with legal support. Video released by a media outlet showed the Korean employee grabbing the worker by the head, shouting insults and slapping him in front of other workers, allegedly because the worker had left the dormitory. Justice Minister Jeong Seong-ho said foreign workers “must be equally protected under the rule of law in the Republic of Korea.” He pledged to provide all possible support to the victim and to strengthen prevention and response systems so foreign workers can work with dignity without human rights abuses. * This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-26 15:54:05 -
South Korea to Start High Fuel Price Relief Payments for Vulnerable Residents With inflation pressures worsening amid the fallout from a war in the Middle East, the government will begin paying “high fuel price relief” this week to ease the burden on vulnerable residents. The Ministry of the Interior and Safety said it will start accepting first-round applications at 9 a.m. on April 27 for basic livelihood recipients and other eligible groups. The first round targets those needing urgent social protection, including basic livelihood recipients, near-poverty households and single-parent families. Payments are calculated per person, not per household. Basic livelihood recipients will receive 550,000 won per person, while near-poverty households and single-parent families will receive 450,000 won. Residents in non-capital areas or population-decline regions will receive an additional 50,000 won per person to support local economies, bringing the maximum to 600,000 won for those who qualify. Applications will be accepted from April 27 through May 8. To reduce congestion and system overload, the government will use a day-of-week schedule during the first week (April 27-30) based on the last digit of an applicant’s birth year: Monday for 1 and 6, Tuesday for 2 and 7, and Wednesday for 3 and 8. On Thursday, April 30, applicants with last digits 4 and 9 and those with 5 and 0 may apply together, taking into account the May 1 Labor Day holiday. Applications are available online and in person. Those who want the money credited to a credit or debit card can apply 24 hours a day through the websites, apps or call centers of nine card companies, or by visiting bank branches linked to those card companies. Those who want local gift certificates or prepaid cards can apply at their local eup, myeon or dong administrative welfare center. Payment methods may vary by local government, so applicants should check in advance. For mobile or card-type local gift certificates, applicants can apply online through their local government’s local gift certificate app or website. Those seeking paper gift certificates or prepaid cards can apply and receive them at their local administrative welfare center, community service center, or eup or myeon office. The support must be used by Aug. 31. To protect small businesses, spending is limited to affiliated merchants with annual sales of 3 billion won or less. It cannot be used at department stores, large discount chains, or adult entertainment and gambling-related businesses. Exceptions apply in rural eup and myeon areas with limited shopping options, including Hanaro Mart stores and local food direct-sale outlets, regardless of sales. The ministry said it plans to provide detailed information on eligible merchants through private map apps starting late this month. Those who dispute eligibility or payment amounts may file objections from May 18 to July 17 through the government petition portal or administrative welfare centers. Eligible residents who miss the first-round window can apply during a second-round application period starting May 18. Inquiries can be made through the government civil service call center (110) or a dedicated call center. Interior and Safety Minister Yoon Ho-jung said he hopes the relief payments will provide “a solid support” for people struggling with high fuel prices, a weak currency and rising prices triggered by the Middle East war. 2026-04-26 14:48:58 -
South Korea’s top court rejects trust firm liability limits not explained to buyers South Korea’s Supreme Court has ruled that a trust company cannot rely on a contract clause limiting its liability if it did not explain the clause to the buyer. The decision means the trust company may still be responsible for penalties tied to delayed occupancy. According to the legal community on the 26th, the Supreme Court’s Third Division, with Justice Lee Sook-yeon as presiding justice, recently upheld a lower court ruling that partly favored the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a person identified as A against K Trust Co. seeking a refund of the purchase price. The dispute arose over the sale of a unit in a knowledge industry center building in Seoul’s Geumcheon District. K Trust, which had signed a managed land trust agreement with the project developer, was the seller that directly executed the sales contract. A became a party to the contract in March 2022 after buying the sales rights from the original buyer. Construction was not completed by the promised move-in date of July 2022. After the delay exceeded four months, A filed suit in November that year seeking to cancel the contract and obtain a penalty payment. The contract stated that if occupancy did not occur within three months of the scheduled move-in date, the buyer could cancel and receive 10% of the sale price as a penalty. During the litigation, K Trust argued it was shielded by a “liability-limitation clause.” The clause said the trust company, as seller, would bear responsibility only within the scope of the trust property and trust agreement, while the developer, as settlor, would be responsible for all obligations including returning cancellation payments. K Trust argued that any refund obligation belonged to the developer, not the trust company. The trial and appellate courts rejected that argument and ruled for A, finding the trust company had to fulfill its obligations as a contracting party. The Supreme Court agreed. The court said the clause “limits or exempts the trustee’s liability to perform obligations to the buyer to the extent of the trust property,” and that it is a matter that “can directly affect” a buyer’s decision on whether to enter the contract. It added that even if such clauses are common in the trust industry, buyers generally have limited transaction experience and lack specialized knowledge of managed land trusts, making it difficult to assume they could anticipate the clause’s existence and content without a separate explanation.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-26 11:24:09 -
Court: Labor Ministry staffer’s sub-$30 meal with Coupang executive did not violate anti-graft law A court has ruled that a Labor Ministry employee and a Coupang Logistics Service (CLS) executive did not violate South Korea’s anti-graft law by sharing a meal costing less than 30,000 won per person, finding no quid pro quo. According to legal officials on the 25th, Seoul Central District Court Judge Cho Ji-hwan of the court’s Civil Division 79 recently decided there was no need to impose an administrative fine on A, an employee at a local office under the Ministry of Employment and Labor, or on Coupang CLS for an alleged violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. The judge also decided not to proceed with a fine trial for A after the ministry withdrew its notice of the alleged violation. The court said there was no ongoing guidance, supervision or inspection case involving Coupang CLS at A’s office at the time of the meal, and found the meeting was for social purposes that did not hinder the proper performance of duties. The court cited that the per-person meal cost was 27,500 won, within the 30,000-won limit allowed under the law’s enforcement decree. “The value of the food provided was 30,000 won or less per person, falling within the permitted scope for social or ceremonial purposes,” the court said. The court also pointed to the pair’s personal ties dating to 2006, when they worked together, that the meeting was not planned in advance and happened by chance, and that other staff who attended also knew the Coupang CLS executive. A had been handling industrial accident-related work at the ministry when, around February last year, a Coupang CLS executive provided lunch worth 165,000 won to A and four colleagues. After learning of it, the head of A’s agency notified the court that A had violated the anti-graft law, triggering fine proceedings. In March, the court decided in a summary ruling not to impose a fine. Prosecutors objected, leading to formal proceedings. The government has continued to stress compliance with the anti-graft law. At a National Assembly hearing on Coupang last year, Labor Minister Kim Young-hoon cited several grade 5 and 6 officials who moved to Coupang from six labor offices before the presidential election and warned of punishment at a “ruinous” level, ordering officials not to make contact.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-26 10:43:58 -
Court Jails Driver Accused in Union Protest Death, Member Accused of Ramming Police Barricade A court has ordered the detention of a truck driver accused of running over and killing a union member at a Cargo Truckers Union rally and a union member accused of injuring a police officer by driving into a barricade. Legal officials said the Changwon District Court’s Jinju branch on the 23rd issued arrest warrants for a truck driver in his 40s, identified only as A, on suspicion of murder and other charges, and for a union member in his 60s, identified only as B, on suspicion of obstructing official duties with a dangerous weapon and other charges. The judge cited concerns they could flee or destroy evidence. Arriving at court for their warrant hearings, A responded to reporters’ questions — including whether the act was intentional and whether he had anything to say to the victim — by saying only, “I’m sorry,” before entering the building. B also repeatedly said, “I’m sorry,” to reporters. The incidents occurred on the 20th outside the CU Jinju logistics center in Jeongchon-myeon, Jinju, South Gyeongsang Province, where the Cargo Truckers Union held a rally urging BGF Logis, CU’s headquarters, to normalize operations. Authorities said A drove his truck toward union members. As members in front of the vehicle banged on it and demanded that he stop, A continued driving, running over them. Two members were seriously injured and one died. On the same day, officials said B drove a van into a police barricade set up at the logistics center’s main gate, and an officer stationed in front of it was struck and injured. A union member in his 50s, identified only as C, was detained the previous day after allegedly threatening police with a weapon. With the latest warrants, three people have now been detained in connection with the rally. Despite the casualties, union members have continued demonstrating near the CU logistics center in Jinju, marching in the area and chanting while demanding an apology from the company and a thorough investigation. Police have deployed riot units and are monitoring the scene to prevent further injuries, officials said.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-23 17:54:18 -
Seoul High Court cancels 234.9 billion won fine in Samsung Wellstory catering case The Seoul High Court has ruled that the Fair Trade Commission must cancel fines totaling more than 200 billion won imposed on Samsung affiliates over allegations they funneled in-house catering contracts to Samsung Wellstory. According to the legal community on April 23, the court’s Administrative Division 3, led by Presiding Judge Yoon Kang-yeol, ruled for four affiliates — Samsung Electronics, Samsung Display, Samsung Electro-Mechanics and Samsung SDI — and Samsung Wellstory in lawsuits seeking to overturn the FTC’s corrective orders and other measures. The panel said the catering transactions, while sizable, could not be seen as providing Samsung Wellstory with excessive economic benefits. It added that the deals could not be recognized as unfair support likely to significantly undermine fair trade. The ruling lifts the burden of total fines of 234.927 billion won previously imposed by the FTC. The FTC had argued in 2021 that Samsung affiliates, under the direction of Samsung’s Future Strategy Office, steered work to Samsung Wellstory through private contracts to shore up its profits. It imposed fines totaling about 234.9 billion won: 101.22 billion won on Samsung Electronics, 22.86 billion won on Samsung Display, 10.51 billion won on Samsung Electro-Mechanics, 4.37 billion won on Samsung SDI and 95.97 billion won on Samsung Wellstory. The court rejected that reasoning, saying the evidence submitted was insufficient to accept the FTC’s claims about instructions from the Future Strategy Office or the alleged motive for the support. The decision is viewed as close to a final ruling because antitrust administrative cases in South Korea follow a two-tier structure in which the Seoul High Court reviews FTC decisions before any appeal to the Supreme Court. While the FTC may still appeal, the ruling is expected to affect a related criminal trial now underway. In 2021, the FTC also filed a complaint with prosecutors against Samsung Electronics as a corporate entity and Choi Gee-sung, a former head of the Future Strategy Office. Prosecutors indicted Choi and Samsung Electronics in 2022 on charges of violating the fair trade law, and a first trial is in progress.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-23 16:53:37 -
Special Prosecutor Raids Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Probe of Shim Woo-jung The second comprehensive special prosecutor team has launched a forced investigation into allegations that Shim Woo-jung, former prosecutor general, was involved in martial law-related actions. In a notice to the media on the 23rd, the team said it was conducting a search and seizure at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in connection with Shim, a suspect, on allegations of “participation in key duties of insurrection” and abuse of authority. It said the probe focuses on the dispatch of prosecutors to a joint investigation headquarters and on allegations tied to waiving an immediate appeal. According to the report, on Dec. 3, 2024, before former President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, then-Justice Minister Park Sung-jae returned to the Justice Ministry complex in Gwacheon after attending a presidential office Cabinet meeting and convened a meeting of senior officials. Shim is said to have reviewed sending prosecutors to the martial law joint investigation headquarters at Park’s direction. About 10 people, including bureau directors, attended the meeting, and controversy followed allegations that Park instructed the ministry’s prosecution bureau to “review dispatching prosecutors” to the joint headquarters. Earlier findings by the special prosecutor investigating insurrection allegations said Park spoke with Shim three times from 11 p.m. that day into the early hours of Dec. 4, raising suspicions Park directed Shim to send prosecutors. The comprehensive special prosecutor also said materials tied to Shim’s alleged decision to forgo an “immediate appeal” were included in the search and seizure, signaling a parallel investigation. The report said that in March last year, Yoon, who had been arrested and indicted on charges of leading an insurrection, asked a court to cancel his detention, arguing prosecutors indicted him after the detention period had expired. Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon granted the request. While the prosecution team argued it should file an immediate appeal of the court’s decision, the report said Shim, after internal meetings including a senior prosecutors’ session, chose not to appeal, and Yoon was released. The insurrection special prosecutor previously investigated the matter and, in September last year, questioned Shim as a person named in a complaint. But after the investigation period expired, the case was transferred to police, the report said. The comprehensive special prosecutor is expected to question Shim soon based on materials seized, including what he discussed with Park and how the decision to waive an immediate appeal was made, the report said.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-23 16:34:02