1. Case OverviewWhile investigating allegations that KT Cloud, an affiliate of the KT Group, had acquired Spark & Associates (Spark, now OpenCloudLab), a vehicle cloud service company, at an inflated price, the prosecution indicted the then-representative directors of KT and KT Cloud on charges of breach of trust. In the course of that investigation, the prosecution also conducted an intensive investigation into the former CEO of Hyundai AutoEver (the "Client"), alleging that the Client had received improper solicitations and accepted money and valuables from third parties in order to facilitate the overpriced acquisition.
During the investigation, the prosecution requested the Client's cooperation, and the Client voluntarily submitted his mobile phone. Based on information extracted from the phone, the prosecution identified separate allegations unrelated to the acquisition agreement, asserting that the Client had received improper solicitations from representatives of cooperating companies regarding maintenance of business relationships and preferential treatment in supply transactions, and had received economic benefits totaling nearly KRW 800 million, including corporate card usage and cash (separate breach-of-trust bribery charges). On this basis, the prosecution sought an arrest warrant and ultimately indicted the Client on charges including breach-of-trust bribery, concealment of criminal proceeds, violations of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, and violations of the Capital Markets Act.
2. Our Arguments and RoleAt the investigation stage, the prosecution applied for an arrest warrant, citing the large amount allegedly received by the Client. We argued for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence with respect to the separate breach-of-trust bribery charges, asserting that:(1) the Client had submitted his mobile phone solely to cooperate with the investigation into the primary case (the breach-of-trust case involving the former KT CEO related to the Spark acquisition);
(2) the Client's substantive participation rights were excluded at the time of submission;
(3) after the submission, the prosecution extracted evidence related to the separate breach-of-trust bribery charges without obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant;
(4) the prosecution conducted searches and seizures of alleged bribers based on such unlawfully obtained evidence; and
(5) the prosecution used such evidence in ways that suggested the existence of separate-case evidence when obtaining written statements from the Client and other related parties.
We also actively demonstrated that there had been no improper solicitation in substance, and successfully secured the dismissal of the arrest warrant application.
At the trial stage, we further brought to light the illegality of the prosecution's separate investigation by filing motions for inspection and copying of investigative records not submitted as evidence, conducting documentary evidence examinations, and examining related witnesses. We persuasively argued that all derivative evidence, such as prosecutorial statements of related parties, in-court testimony, and evidence obtained through searches and seizures of alleged bribers, was inadmissible. We also advanced multifaceted arguments on the merits to demonstrate the absence of any improper solicitation.
The court accepted all of our arguments and rendered a verdict of complete acquittal on all charges, including breach-of-trust bribery, concealment of criminal proceeds, violations of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, and violations of the Capital Markets Act.
3. Outcome and SignificanceBy logically applying the principle that electronic information voluntarily submitted cannot be used to seize irrelevant evidence beyond the submitter's intent, and that derivative evidence obtained therefrom is likewise inadmissible, we achieved the best possible outcome of a complete acquittal tailored to the specific facts of the case. This decision constitutes an important precedent for assessing the illegality of separate-case evidence obtained from voluntarily submitted electronic information in future cases.
□ Attorneys in 메이저 바카라 사이트: Kim Yong-ha, Jeon Gi-cheol, Koh Jin-won, Lee Yun-sang, Park Jun-woo
