This article was displayed on the ChosunBiz RM Report website at 11:21 a.m. on May 11, 2026.
An appeals court ruled that the painting by artist Lee Ufan that first lady Kim Keon-hee received from former Senior Prosecutor Kim Sang-min is genuine. Because whether the painting was a forgery was the key issue in the case, attention is focusing on the grounds the court cited to find it genuine.
According to legal sources on the 11th, the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 6-2 (Presiding Judge Park Jeong-je, High Court Judges Min Dal-gi and Kim Jong-woo) on the 8th handed down a suspended prison sentence to former Prosecutor Kim, who was indicted on charges including violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. The appeals court overturned the first-instance acquittal on the graft law charge and found it guilty.
The crux was whether the Lee Ufan painting that former Prosecutor Kim delivered to Kim's side was genuine. Kim's side argued, "The painting is a forgery, so its actual value does not exceed 1 million won per instance, the threshold for the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act." The special prosecutor's team countered, "Because it is genuine, a violation of the graft law is established."
Last month, the appeals panel called as witnesses officials from the Korea Gallery Association and the Korea Art Authentication Research Center, the two leading institutions in Korea's art appraisal field, to hear their opinions. The two institutions reached opposite conclusions in court. The Gallery Association said it was a "forgery," while the Authentication Research Center found it "genuine."
In the end, the court found the opinion of the Authentication Research Center more credible.
① "Hard to conclude based on glass fragments alone"
First, the court found that it was difficult to conclude the work was a forgery based solely on the "substance presumed to be glass fragments" presented by the Gallery Association as evidence of forgery. Citing glass particles found during high-magnification microscopic observation, the association argued, "It is unlikely that such impurities would be present in a work by a world-class artist like Lee Ufan."
Indeed, in the "Lee Ufan forgery case" that surfaced in 2016, glass fragments were among the grounds for finding forgery. However, the court noted that at the time there were additional objective pieces of evidence, including statements from the forger and component analysis by the National Forensic Service. By contrast, in this case, even a precise analysis of the substance presumed to be glass was not conducted.
② "Similar finishing methods exist on other genuine Lee Ufan works"
The canvas finishing method also did not serve as decisive evidence. In court, the Gallery Association said, "Lee Ufan's works value blank space and infinite expansion, so having nails visible on the sides of the work or fixing the canvas from the side does not fit the artist's aesthetics." The point was that, in the 1980s, it was common for Lee's works to have the canvas wrapped to the back and densely fixed with a tacker (stapler).
But the court said, "The canvas finishing method is not an essential element of the work." It could not rule out the possibility that the finishing changed during 40-plus years of distribution due to frame replacement and other factors. It also cited as grounds that a similar side-fixing method was confirmed among other genuine works by Lee Ufan.
As for the chroma of the pigment used in the signature on the front of the painting, the court found it unsuitable as decisive grounds for authenticity. It can change due to various external factors such as storage environment or lighting, and the two institutions assessed it differently.
③ "Authentication by the Korea Art Authentication Research Center is more credible"
The court found the appraisal by the Korea Art Authentication Research Center, which concluded the work is genuine, more credible.
It said the appraisal was the result of an appraisal committee of nine to 10 experts, including a former director of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, directly examining the piece in person. It also cited as grounds that after a total of three rounds of appraisal, the conclusion that it is genuine remained consistent.
The court also noted that the Authentication Research Center conducted a comprehensive analysis of the signature, color, pigment, and sense of age, and used scientific techniques such as ultraviolet (UV) imaging and high-magnification microscopy.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the Authentication Research Center's finding of authenticity was more reliable than the Gallery Association's finding of forgery.
Meanwhile, the court also recognized that former Prosecutor Kim purchased the painting and delivered it to Kim's side. It also found Kim guilty of receiving an illegal donation of 42 million won from a businessman surnamed Kim, under the pretext of rental fees and insurance for a campaign vehicle while preparing to run in the general election.
The appeals court sentenced Kim to two years in prison for violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act and one year for violating the Political Funds Act, and then suspended the execution of the sentence for three years.