Supreme Court Finalizes Suspended Sentence for Former Prosecutor Lee Kyuwon in "Kim Hak-ui False Report" Case

Lee Kyuwon, Former Prosecutor, Says He Will "Actively Consider Filing a Constitutional Complaint"

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Lee Kyuwon of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, who was indicted for involvement in the illegal travel ban of former Minister of Justice Kim Hakui, is attending a trial held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the 15th. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

Lee Kyuwon, head of the Wonju City chapter of the National Innovation Party and former Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, who was brought to trial on charges of falsifying interview reports during the investigation into former Ministry of Justice Vice Minister Kim Hak-ui's "villa sex bribery allegations," has received a finalized suspension of sentence with a fine.

On June 11, the third division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Lee Sukyeon) upheld the lower court’s ruling that suspended the imposition of a 2 million won fine for Chairman Lee, who was indicted on charges including falsification of official documents, violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, and violation of the Act on Promotion of Electronic Criminal Justice Procedures. A suspended sentence is a system in which the court acknowledges the criminal charges but postpones the imposition of punishment in consideration of extenuating circumstances. If two years pass from the date of suspension, the defendant is considered acquitted and avoids punishment.

While serving as a prosecutor, Chairman Lee worked as a member of the Past Affairs Investigation Team at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office from November 2018 to May 2019. At that time, he was brought to trial on charges of writing in his interview reports statements that were not actually made by key figures in the allegations, such as construction businessman Yoon Jungcheon and former Blue House administrator Park Gwanchun, during the investigation into the sex bribery allegations against former Vice Minister Kim.

The first trial court found Lee guilty of falsifying an interview report by reconstructing the gist of a statement without an audio recording after his third interview with Yoon, and ruled that he had produced a false document. However, the court found him not guilty of charges such as leaking official secrets, violating the Personal Information Protection Act, obstruction of business, defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act, and violation of the Act on Promotion of Electronic Criminal Justice Procedures, and suspended a fine of 500,000 won.

The second trial reached a somewhat different conclusion. The appellate court found Lee guilty on two charges that the first court had acquitted: violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and violation of the Act on Promotion of Electronic Criminal Justice Procedures. The court ruled that Lee had leaked personal information learned during the interviews to outsiders and had provided information confirmed through the Korean Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (KICS) without authorization. However, the appellate court stated, "Although the illegal acts cannot be justified, the degree of illegality and the extent of infringement on legal interests seem minor," and suspended the imposition of a 2 million won fine.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the lower court had made no error in its application of the law and dismissed Lee’s appeal. Lee announced that he plans to file a constitutional complaint, arguing that the Supreme Court did not sufficiently consider the legal issues he raised. He stated, "There were many legal issues involved, such as the legal nature of official documents, the purpose and protected interests of the Personal Information Protection Act, the limits of interpreting criminal elements, criteria for determining specificity of criminal charges, and whether justifiable acts apply in case of a conflict between personal information and the right to know." He added, "Once I receive the written judgment, I will actively consider filing a constitutional complaint."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.