A police officer was put on trial on charges of tipping off a lawyer acquaintance about investigation information regarding soccer player Hwang Ui-jo, 34, but the Supreme Court overturned the case and sent it back for a new trial.
According to legal sources on the 1st, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Seo Kyung-hwan) on July 16 overturned the lower court ruling that sentenced a police officer surnamed Cho, 46, indicted on charges of leaking official secrets, to one year in prison and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.
Earlier, in June 2023, a woman claimed to be Hwang's ex-girlfriend and posted a tell-all about his private life. Hwang filed a complaint with police against the woman, saying the photos and videos were fabricated. While investigating, police detected indications that Hwang had engaged in illegal filming. Hwang was indicted on charges of filming on multiple occasions or recording video calls without the consent of two women, and in September last year a one-year prison term with two years of probation was finalized.
Cho's case arose in January 2024, when police were investigating Hwang. At the time, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Cyber Investigation Unit was handling Hwang's case. Cho belonged to another team in the Cyber Investigation Unit and held the rank of inspector.
According to the prosecution's indictment, on Jan. 24, 2024, Cho learned that police would conduct a search and seizure of Hwang's side. Cho then called attorney A, the managing partner of a law firm with whom Cho had a personal relationship, via Telegram and said to the effect that "the investigative team will soon conduct search and seizure on Hwang or people around him." The next day, before heading out to execute the search and seizure, Cho called A via Telegram and said, "The target is a friend of Hwang who lives in Gangnam-gu, Seoul."
The law firm where A worked was representing Hwang. Cho and A became close through their alma mater connection and grew closer by traveling together. Prosecutors indicted Cho, judging that Cho leaked, in violation of the law, confidential work information about the planned execution of a search warrant.
The first trial acquitted Cho. The first trial panel said, "There are no call logs at all between Cho and A," adding, "It is hard to readily assume that a police officer and a lawyer would never make ordinary calls and would maintain and develop a close relationship only through internet calls and the like."
The fact that Cho reviewed the warrant execution plan the afternoon before the search and seizure also formed the basis for the acquittal. The first trial panel said, "At any time, Cho could have photographed the plan itself and sent it or at least conveyed details verbally, so it is difficult to accept that Cho would leak uncertain information only right before departure."
The appeals court sentenced Cho to one year in prison. The appeals panel acknowledged the charges, saying, "Cho often used Telegram to make calls, even for routine calls with police colleagues." Without additional evidentiary examination, the appeals court concluded arguments at the first court hearing and rendered a guilty verdict based only on circumstantial evidence.
Regarding the case, the Supreme Court noted, "There is no direct evidence at all. The key figure testified that they did not leak or convey the search-and-seizure information." It continued, "If the lower court intended to recognize the indictment based only on circumstantial evidence, it should have carefully reconsidered the matter after re-examining witnesses and conducting additional evidentiary proceedings," and remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration and judgment.