The special counsel investigating Kim Keon-hee appealed against the first-instance rulings that found Kim Ye-seong not guilty or dismissed the indictment, and that found some counts not guilty in the case of former Senior Prosecutor Kim Sang-min. The special counsel said on the 11th that it filed a notice of appeal that day against the two first-instance verdicts handed down on the 9th.
In the case of Kim Ye-seong, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 26 (Presiding Judge Lee Hyun-kyung) on the 9th ruled that intent to embezzle was not proven regarding the part where, after selling IMS Mobility shares held under the name of the borrowed-name company Innovest Korea for 4.6 billion won in 2023, 2.43 billion won of that was remitted to IMS Mobility CEO Cho Young-tak in the form of "lending." The court said that, considering that CEO Cho filled a gap with personal debt during the investment attraction process, resulting in a benefit to the company, and that part of that returned to Cho, it is difficult to recognize "intent to illegally appropriate."
The special counsel countered that this was a "typical embezzlement" of corporate funds arbitrarily used for personal purposes, and argued that, given CEO Cho's ability to repay, the lending was only nominal. The special counsel also noted the court's decision to dismiss charges on the grounds that it was difficult to view Kim's other alleged personal corruption as "related crimes" within the scope of the special counsel's investigation. The special counsel said it regards the offenses as lawfully identified during the investigation under the special counsel act, and will contest in the appellate court the propriety of the investigation's scope and the circumstances of the crime's identification.
Regarding the case of former Senior Prosecutor Kim Sang-min, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 21 (Presiding Judge Lee Hyun-bok) found not guilty on the charge of violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, which alleged that he provided paintings to the first lady's side in return for a nomination, citing insufficient proof.
However, the first-instance court returned guilty verdicts on some of Kim's other charges. Aiming at the acquittal related to the paintings, the special counsel argued there were errors of fact and misinterpretation of law, citing indications that Kim had ascertained the first lady's taste in art in advance and the circumstances under which the paintings were seized.
In the appellate stage, the two cases are expected to be reframed around core issues: the scope of the "intent to illegally appropriate" recognized by the first-instance court, whether they constitute "related crimes" within the special counsel's investigative scope, and the evidentiary structure for "provision" and solicitation under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.
Meanwhile, of the seven cases in which first-instance rulings have been delivered so far, the special counsel received dismissals or partial acquittals in five, except for two cases, including those involving lawmaker Kweon Seong-dong and a broker surnamed Lee.