"Baekhyeon-dong Investigation Lobbying": Suspended Prison Sentence Finalized for Attorney Jungki Kwak

Two Years and Six Months in Prison, Four-Year Suspension, and Forfeiture of 50 Million Won

A suspended prison sentence has been finalized for attorney Jungki Kwak, who was indicted on charges of accepting money in exchange for arranging for the investigation into the Baekhyeon-dong development corruption case to be quashed.

Jeongki Kwak, Attorney. Yonhap News Agency

The Supreme Court's third division (presiding Justice Heung-Koo Lee) on June 24 upheld the lower court's ruling that sentenced attorney Kwak, who was charged with violating the Attorney-at-Law Act, to two years and six months in prison, suspended for four years, and ordered the forfeiture of 50 million won. The court also confirmed the fine of 10 million won and the forfeiture of approximately 6.35 million won for Mr. Park, a then-serving police officer who was tried alongside Kwak for violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act and other charges.

Attorney Kwak and Mr. Park were brought to trial on charges of colluding for case retention and to quash an ongoing police investigation into developer Mr. Jeong in the Baekhyeon-dong development project in 2022. Mr. Park reportedly introduced and brokered the case to Jeong's side, saying, "To wrap up the case at the police stage, you must retain attorney Kwak."

Attorney Kwak received a retainer of 140 million won from Jeong, of which he gave 4 million won to Mr. B as a referral fee. He also personally received 50 million won in cash from Jeong as so-called lobbying funds, claiming that he needed to "greet senior officials at the National Police Agency." In addition, Mr. Park was found guilty of repeatedly receiving entertainment worth more than 1 million won per instance in connection with his duties.

The main issue at trial was whether attorney Kwak had received 50 million won under the pretense of soliciting investigative agencies, a charge for which he had been acquitted at the first trial. The district court found the testimony of Mr. Jeong, who claimed to have handed over the money, lacked credibility; however, the appellate court overturned this verdict, citing consistency of testimony and objective circumstances as grounds for conviction.

The Supreme Court also accepted the appellate court's judgment. The panel stated, "The lower court did not err by violating the rules of logic and experience or by exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, nor did it misunderstand the legal principles regarding violations of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act."

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