Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) review committee members who were put on trial on charges of taking bribes were acquitted by the Supreme Court. The prosecution's mobile phone recordings were collected illegally and were not admissible as evidence.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) said on the 26th that it finalized the lower court ruling that acquitted A and B, who were indicted on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and taking bribes, on the 9th of last month.
A worked at the Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-water), handling supervisory duties such as building planning, design, and construction. B worked at the Korea Authority of Land & Infrastructure Safety (KALIS), handling tasks such as safety and quality control for construction work. From March 2019 for one year, they were appointed as LH technology review and evaluation committee members and were in a position to be selected as evaluators in LH procurement service bid evaluations, such as technology-type bids and architectural design competitions.
On Jan. 8, 2020, A was selected as a review committee member for an apartment construction project ordered by LH. That day, A met C, an executive director at a bidding company, who requested "give us a first-place score," and received a shopping bag containing 30 million won in cash. Also that day, A received a request from D, the head of a competing company, saying "I will repay the favor," and the next day gave that company a first-place score. On the 21st of the same month, A met D in a hotel parking lot in Seoul and received a shopping bag containing 40 million won in cash.
B was selected as a review committee member for the same service as A. Late at night on Jan. 8, 2020, B met C, who requested "give a good score and give a low score to the competitor," and received 20 million won in cash on the spot. The next day, B gave C's company a first-place score and the competitor a third-place score.
During the trial, A and B argued that the mobile phone recording file of witness E was seized by investigators even though it was not related to the facts underlying the probable cause for issuing the search and seizure warrant. They added, "Because no additional search and seizure warrant was obtained for the bribery allegations, it constitutes evidence collected illegally."
In July 2015, the Supreme Court en banc held that when investigators inadvertently discover electronic information related to a separate criminal suspicion during the process of searching and seizing electronic data, they must obtain a warrant for that suspicion to conduct a lawful search and seizure.
In the first trial, the court sentenced A to three years in prison and a fine of 70 million won, and B to two years in prison and a fine of 20 million won. Investigators obtained a search and seizure warrant to uncover allegations that architectural firms violated the Fair Trade Act (bid rigging). The first trial court found that some of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor exceeded the scope of the search and seizure warrant and deemed it illegally collected evidence, but recognized the admissibility of other evidence.
On appeal, the court acquitted A and B. The appellate court said, "Whether some of the bidders who participated in the tender provided money or valuables to the review committee members and the specific details do not share identity with the basic facts of the bidders' internal concerted conduct."
It went on, "The prosecutor conducted interviews and searches and seizures of related parties in succession, starting from the initial illegally collected evidence," and did not recognize the admissibility of the evidence the prosecutor submitted against the two defendants.
The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, saying the lower court's judgment did not misunderstand the legal principles.