Former Director General of the KIA Tigers, Jang Jeong-seok, and former manager Kim Jong-guk were acquitted in their second trial regarding the allegations of receiving hundreds of millions of won in bribes from a sponsoring company. This conclusion is the same as in the first trial.

Former manager of the professional baseball Kia Tigers, Kim Jong-guk (left), and former Director General Jang Jeong-seok are suspected of receiving illegal payments from a sponsoring company. /Courtesy of News1

On the 29th, the 13th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Chief Judge Baek Kang-jin) dismissed the prosecution's appeal during the appellate trial date regarding the charges of breach of trust against Jang and Kim, maintaining the first trial's ruling.

The court noted that while it is highly questionable whether the defendants' actions have moral or legal legitimacy, it can at least agree with the first trial's judgment that criminal liability does not hold regarding the charges of breach of trust filed by the prosecution.

Previously, Jang and Kim were indicted without detention in March of last year on charges of receiving a total of 100 million won in return for facilitating an advertising contract from Kim, the representative of a coffee company that sponsors the KIA Tigers, in October 2022.

Jang was also charged with soliciting 200 million won in bribes by promising to secure at least 1.2 billion won in free agent (FA) contract payments for player Park Dong-won, who was part of the KIA team between May and August 2022, but this allegation was deemed an attempt (attempted breach of trust). Additionally, Kim faced charges for receiving 60 million won from Kim in July 2022 related to an improper solicitation concerning player uniform advertisement contracts.

The first trial acquitted both Jang and Kim. The court stated, 'As the Director General in charge of salary negotiations, Jang attempted to take bribes contrary to his duty of working for the KIA Tigers, and there is a question of whether the two should receive money concerning the coffee advertising contract.' It acknowledged that 'the situation deserves moral condemnation,' but concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish a crime related to the improper solicitation.