Koo Hyun-mo, former KT representative, was acquitted of embezzlement charges related to the so-called "split sponsorship of National Assembly members" by the Supreme Court on the 12th. Previously, the first trial acknowledged the charges and imposed a fine of 3 million won, but this was overturned by the second trial.
However, regarding separate political fund law violations related to the same allegations, a fine of 7 million won was imposed by the second trial in June of last year, and both Koo's side and the prosecution did not appeal, confirming the ruling.
The Supreme Court's 1st Division, led by Justice Shin Suk-hee, upheld the second trial's ruling that acquitted Koo of the embezzlement charges.
Earlier, Koo and former and current senior KT executives were indicted for creating slush funds between May 2014 and October 2017, allegedly splitting a total of 400 million won to sponsor 99 National Assembly members. The prosecution argued that they created slush funds by purchasing gift certificates and then cashing them in. Koo also faced charges for illegally donating a total of 14 million won to the sponsorship associations of 13 National Assembly members under his name.
The prosecution separated Koo's political fund law violations and embezzlement charges according to the Public Official Election Act and filed them as summary charges, but since Koo contested them, a formal trial took place.
The first and second trials acknowledged the political fund law violations, imposing a fine of 7 million won.
For the embezzlement charges, the first trial imposed a fine of 3 million won, but this was overturned in the second trial.
The second trial court stated, "The prosecution indicted the defendant for embezzling company money by receiving slush funds created with KT funds and remitting donations, but in this case, it can be considered that the timing of when the slush funds were created, not when they were used, constitutes embezzlement. Thus, it is difficult to acknowledge the defendant's collusion regarding the creation of slush funds."
The prosecution appealed the second trial's ruling on the embezzlement charges. However, the Supreme Court found no issues with the second trial's ruling and confirmed the acquittal.