At the first court hearing, the side of Suneung math "top instructor" Hyeon Woo-jin, who was sent to trial on charges of receiving questions for College Scholastic Ability Test (Suneung) prep books from incumbent teachers and paying large sums of money, flatly denied the charges. They acknowledged purchasing the questions, but argued that the payments were made under a legitimate contract and therefore did not violate the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.
The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 10 Single-Judge Bench (presiding judge Lee Jae-uk, Senior Judge) held the first court hearing on the 24th for Hyeon and others indicted on charges of violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. Hyeon was sent to trial in Dec. last year on charges of commissioning three incumbent teachers to produce Suneung-related questions from 2020 to 2023 and paying a total of a little over 400 million won.
According to prosecutors, from Mar. 2020 to May 2023, over about four years, Hyeon remitted 179.09 million won to Teacher A, 167.77 million won to Teacher B over 20 transfers, and 75.3 million won to Teacher C over 37 transfers, respectively, it was found. Prosecutors view this as the receipt of money and valuables beyond the permissible scope under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, given that all of them were incumbent teachers.
Hyeon's side countered that the payments were legitimate compensation under a question transaction contract. Hyeon's attorney said, "We needed questions to include in the prep books, so we signed a contract and paid the agreed amount in full by bank transfer and even paid taxes," adding, "As an instructor, providing high-quality questions is an obligation to students."
Hyeon's side also said there was no separate premium paid merely because they were incumbent teachers, and that, as with public calls for questions or using outside vendors, it was just one of several channels to secure questions. They further argued that none of the questions had actually appeared on school exams in a way that raised fairness issues, and that it is hard to see that a concurrent employment approval was required to conduct the transaction.
In the day's proceedings, the court noted that the allegations appeared similar in some respects to the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act's provision limiting honoraria for outside lectures and contributions, and asked prosecutors to further explain the specific legal theory for indicting on charges of receiving money and valuables. The next hearing will be held on May 29.