A three-year prison term was finalized for former Democracy Institute Deputy Director Jeon Jun-kyung, 60, who received about 800 million won in cash and valuables from Baekhyeon-dong developers and others.
The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Ma Yong-ju) on the 2nd upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing the former deputy director, indicted on charges of bribery and receiving a brokerage fee under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, to three years in prison, a fine of 52 million won, and forfeiture of 800.8 million won.
Jeon served as a nonstanding Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) from 2015 to 2018, president of the Yongin Municipal Policy Institute in 2020, and deputy director of the Democratic Party of Korea think tank Democracy Institute in 2021.
From January to July 2017, Jeon received 26 million won in 13 installments from a hot spring developer in return for committee activities related to grievance petitions.
In addition, from July 2015 to March 2025, Jeon received a total of 782.08 million won and a Genesis sedan from seven companies under the pretext of brokering matters related to Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) grievance petitions and local government permits and approvals.
Of that, a little over 100 million won and the sedan were provided by Jung Ba-ul, chairman of Asia Developer, who was linked to the Baekhyeon-dong development corruption.
During the trial, Jeon argued that the payments were consulting fees for legitimate advice and not money received in connection with official duties.
In the first trial, Jeon was sentenced to two years and six months in prison, a fine of 52 million won, and forfeiture of 800.8 million won. The appellate court ruled the first sentence too light and increased the prison term to three years. The amounts of the fine and forfeiture were maintained.
The appellate court said, "The defendant used a public position as a means to obtain private economic benefits," and added, "The defendant actively demanded monetary benefits from counterparts and, to disguise wrongful conduct as normal, demanded the signing of an advisory contract. In terms of the nature and manner of the acts and the scale of the gains obtained, the culpability is very grave."
Jeon appealed the ruling, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.