This article was published on the ChosunBiz RM Report site at 2:37 p.m. on Feb. 26, 2026.
Prosecutors and the Korea Fair Trade Commission are locking horns over a "sugar, flour, and power equipment bid-rigging case" worth a total of 10 trillion won. Differences in how the two sides view investigative leadership and contribution to results surfaced openly at the National Assembly, escalating into a head-on clash between the agencies.
According to the legal community and the National Assembly on the 26th, Korea Fair Trade Commission Chairperson Ju Biung-ghi appeared before the National Policy Committee on the 23rd and said, "The Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) completed its investigation into the sugar (bid-rigging case) issue earlier than the prosecution's indictment," adding, "The prosecution determines its search and seizure targets based on the FTC's investigation findings."
Ju also said, "The case the FTC identified and investigated through economic analysis is the sugar bid-rigging case," adding, "A key result was doggedly investigating the leniency application for 10 months and drawing it out in the sugar case."
The remarks came as Heo Yeong of the Democratic Party of Korea noted, "The FTC took 1 year and 7 months, but the prosecution uncovered a 10 trillion won scale in five months." Ju pushed back on the "speed" of the prosecution's probe, saying, "There is an aspect where incorrect information is circulating," and argued that the prosecution's indictment procedure is more limited than the FTC's case-handling procedure.
When Park Sang-hyeok of the Democratic Party of Korea questioned the competition between the prosecution and the FTC over leniency (a system for mitigation or exemption of punishment), Ju stressed, "It is desirable to unify it under the FTC."
Inside the prosecution, however, there is evident frustration that the FTC is trying to distort investigative outcomes with claims that do not match the facts. According to the prosecution, searches and seizures of the three sugar makers and their executives and employees were conducted on Sept. 17 last year. It is also known that the prosecution searched the FTC on the 23rd of the same month to secure materials.
The prosecution said it launched the investigation independently of the FTC's materials and that, given the timing, it would have been impossible to set investigative targets or the scope of searches and seizures based on those materials.
The prosecution also said there were differences in the scope of the investigation. The review report the FTC sent in Oct. last year is said to have focused on working-level officials, including the head of the B2B Business Division at CJ CheilJedang and the head of the Sales PU at Samyang Corporation.
By contrast, the prosecution secured evidence and indications implicating top executives who were not included in the FTC's investigation targets, such as the head of Korea Foods at CJ CheilJedang and the CEO of Samyang Corporation, and indicted two individuals under arrest. They reportedly admitted to most of the charges at the first hearing.
A prosecution official said, "Without the prosecution's investigation, it would not have been easy to establish responsibility at the top." The FTC resent a revised review report to corporations on Dec. 23 last year.
The FTC cautioned against overinterpretation. An FTC official explained, "The chairperson's remarks did not refer to a specific case, but appear to mean that in general cases of Fair Trade Act violations, the prosecution can refer to the FTC's complaint materials."
In the legal community, the controversy is seen as a difference in perspective arising from a division of institutional roles. A lawyer who previously served as a Director General prosecutor said, "The prosecution sometimes investigates matters reported by the FTC, but it can exercise investigative authority preemptively for major issues," adding, "In this bid-rigging case as well, it can be seen that each institution performed its role in the process of rectifying unfair transactions."