Prosecutors are said to have decided not to indict 10 current and former lawmakers who had been under investigation over the Democratic Party of Korea cash envelope distribution allegations. The decision appears to have been influenced by the court's refusal to admit as evidence the mobile phone audio recordings of former Democratic Party of Korea deputy secretary-general Lee Jeong-geun, which had been cited as key evidence.
According to legal sources on the 4th, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Anti-Corruption Investigation Division 2 (Director General Lee Sang-hyeok) in mid-March issued no-charge dispositions for Democratic Party of Korea lawmakers Kim Young-ho, Park Sung-joon, Baek Hye-ryeon, Min Byung-duk, and Jeon Yong-gi; former lawmakers Kim Nam-kuk, Kim Seung-nam, Park Young-soon, and Lee Yong-bin; and Rebuilding Korea Party lawmaker Hwang Un-ha on allegations including violations of the Political Funds Act.
The cash envelope allegations center on claims that, ahead of the Democratic Party of Korea national convention in May 2021, associates of former party leader Song Young-gil and former lawmaker Youn Kwan-suk delivered envelopes containing 3 million won to sitting lawmakers. Prosecutors believed cash envelopes were delivered to about 20 Democratic Party of Korea lawmakers at the time and continued their probe.
However, in related trials, the admissibility of the former deputy secretary-general's mobile phone audio recordings became a key issue. The court ruled the recordings were illegally obtained and did not admit them as evidence. Former lawmaker Lee Seong-man was later brought to trial on charges of receiving cash envelopes, but in February the Supreme Court finalized an acquittal.
Former leader Song also was acquitted in both the first and second trials on charges related to the cash envelope allegations. Prosecutors did not appeal, and as a result Song's acquittal was finalized.
On Feb. 20, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, in announcing it would forgo an appeal in Song's case, said it had taken into account the Supreme Court's rulings in former lawmaker Lee's case. It also cited the Supreme Court's strict stance on the admissibility of seized evidence as a reason not to appeal.