Current teachers who made and sold questions to prepare for the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) to "No. 1 star instructor" Hyeon U-jin and received money were indicted on charges of violating the Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and Graft (the anti-graft law) but were acquitted at the first trial.
The court found the exchange of money between Hyeon and the teachers to be a "private transaction" and ruled them not guilty. In contrast, in another case, an education official who took money claimed it was a "private transaction," but the claim was rejected and a guilty verdict was handed down. Whether the level of money could be seen as "fair compensation" determined guilt or acquittal.
◇ "Money exchanged between Hyeon U-jin and incumbent teachers was performance of a debt arising from a private transaction"
According to legal sources on the 5th, Lee Jae-uk, Director General judge of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 10 single-judge panel, on Aug. 26 acquitted two incumbent teachers indicted on charges of violating the anti-graft law. Hyeon, who paid them, and A, the head of a teaching material development company, were also acquitted.
According to prosecutors, teacher B provided math questions for CSAT preparation to Hyeon's side and received a total of 167.77 million won in 20 payments from Mar. 2020 to Apr. 2023. Another teacher, C, also sold math questions and received a total of 179.09 million won around the same period.
Article 8(1) of the anti-graft law prohibits public officials and school staff from receiving more than 1 million won at a time or more than 3 million won in a year from the same person, regardless of job relevance. However, Article 8(3)3 provides an exception for money given under a "just title," such as repaying a debt arising from a private transaction.
The court viewed the money the two incumbent teachers received from Hyeon as falling under a just title. The court said, "The concept of 'just title' originates from the Roman-law notions of iusta causa and iustus titulus," adding, "It was used to mean the legal causal relationship that justifies the acquisition of a thing or the retention of performance, and did not include a moral value judgment on private transactions."
It continued, "The performances exchanged by the defendants corresponded to the creation of questions and constitute performance of a debt arising from a private transaction," and ruled, "They do not fall under the money prohibited from being received under Article 8(1) of the anti-graft law."
The court said, "Even if there are inappropriate aspects to public officials' conduct, it is neither possible nor desirable to criminally punish all of them."
◇ High school baseball coach who received a vehicle from a parent also claimed a "private transaction"
In other anti-graft cases, courts have also judged guilt or innocence based on the reason money was given and whether there was actual compensation corresponding to it.
In Jan. 2020, the Daegu District Court sentenced a high school baseball coach to six months in prison, suspended for one year, in a case where the coach, charged with violating the anti-graft law, agreed to receive a passenger car worth 106.5 million won as a gift from a parent and had the parent pay the installments instead.
The coach argued that the car installments were merely payment of money due from a personal transaction. But the court held that the 12,208,872 won covering the purchase deposit and acquisition and registration taxes for the car the coach received from the parent constituted prohibited receipt of money under the anti-graft law.
In Apr. 2023, the Supreme Court finalized the lower court's ruling sentencing both D, a high school athletics team coach, and E, the successor, to eight months in prison, suspended for two years, in a case where D was charged with violating the anti-graft law after receiving money from E.
E, who had worked as an after-school class instructor, was about to lose a job when the class was discontinued. D then quit the coaching job and handed it over to E. As compensation, E transferred 46.8 million won to D.
The appellate court earlier recognized a violation of the anti-graft law, saying the money was paid on the condition of resignation and hiring. It also found that an athletics team coach is "school staff" subject to the anti-graft law because the coach belongs to the school and performs training and guidance duties for student athletes.
◇ The Hyeon U-jin case was different… weighing "market price" over moral judgment
In rejecting the anti-graft charges against the two incumbent teachers, the court cited the "price of questions." They received on average 230,000–240,000 won per item for mock test questions and 120,000–130,000 won per item for general textbook questions from Hyeon's side. Hyeon's side also bought questions from professional firms and the general public, with average prices per item of 150,000–390,000 won for professional firms and 100,000–500,000 won for the general public.
The court said, "The amounts paid to the teachers are at a similar level or even higher," adding, "If (the teachers) had been paid significantly more than professional firms or the general public, the anti-graft violation could be established."
By contrast, in the case of covering the car costs, the claim of a "personal transaction" was not accepted. In the athletics coach case, the fact that the money was paid on the premise of hiring formed the basis for the guilty verdict.
Shin Jeong-uk, an attorney at Dongin, said, "If one argues 'private transaction' in an anti-graft case, it is necessary to examine whether an actual transaction occurred and whether the amount paid corresponded to the consideration," adding, "In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between teachers becoming subject to discipline for violating concurrent job or public servant service rules and whether the transaction in question is subject to criminal punishment under the anti-graft law."