1. Case Overview

a. Background of the Case

In the first trial, the court determined that the development plan in this case, which Defendant A learned about while serving as a public official, constituted a secret as defined under Article 7-2 of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act, and that the defendants used this development plan. Consequently, Defendant A was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison, and Defendant B was sentenced to 1 year in prison with 2 years of probation. The defendants appealed, and we represented the defendants in the litigation.

b. Details of the Litigation

In the appellate trial, the key issue was whether the defendants "used" information related to the project in this case to purchase the respective lands. The appellate court found that the prosecution's evidence did not sufficiently prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants used information related to the project to purchase the respective lands, thereby acquiring property in the name of OO Industry or allowing a third party, C (Defendant B's mother), to acquire property. As there was no other evidence to support this, the court ruled not guilty. The ruling was finalized as the appeal was dismissed.


2. Our Argument and Role

We actively demonstrated through various pieces of evidence that at the time of purchasing the respective lands, the location of the development plan had not been determined, Defendant A had no motive or inducement to have Defendant B purchase the respective lands, and that Defendant B purchased the respective lands for the purpose of starting a café, unrelated to the development plan. As a result, we led to the judgment that the defendants did not "use" information related to the project to purchase the respective lands.


3. Significance of the Ruling

The ruling ensured that defendants, who had been sentenced to imprisonment merely for the reason that the spouse of a party was a public official related to the development plan and the spouse of the other party purchased the land intended for the development plan, were not wrongfully punished under the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act.


□ Attorney in charge: Park Chang-ryul