Kim Seung-won Apologizes, Saying "Drunk Driving Is an Unacceptable Wrongdoing," Denies 'Judge-Broker Selfie' Allegation

[Financial News] Kim Seung-won, nominee for Minister of Justice, apologized for having previously been fined for drunk driving, calling it "an unacceptable wrongdoing under any circumstances."
Regarding allegations in the so-called 'Ministry of Food and Drug Safety lobbying case' that he took a photo with a judge assigned to review arrest warrants and an individual identified as a broker, he denied the claims, saying the judge had not been involved in reviewing the warrant in the case.
Kim's confirmation hearing preparation team said in a media notice on the 4th, "Drunk driving is an unacceptable wrongdoing under any circumstances," adding, "As a lawyer at the time, he should have conducted himself to an even higher standard." It continued, "He deeply regrets his actions and sincerely apologizes to the people."
Kim was reportedly sentenced to a fine of 700,000 won in July 2008, the year he retired as a judge, for violating the Road Traffic Act by driving under the influence.
However, the preparation team issued a separate explanatory statement regarding the allegations that Kim lobbied the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety and rebutted each of the claims.
The allegations concern claims that Kim contacted the then-head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in October 2021 at the request of Yang, who was identified as a broker, asking that the approval process for a clinical trial of a domestic small business's COVID-19 treatment be expedited.
Prosecutors investigated Professor Kang, an executive of a pharmaceutical company, on suspicion of seeking expedited approval for the clinical trial through Yang, who had political and business connections. Investigators determined that Yang had also conveyed the related grievance to Kim.
The preparation team first drew a line between Kim and the case, saying allegations that he took a photo at a private gathering with Judge Jeong, who had previously served as a judge assigned to review arrest warrants, and Yang were unrelated to the matter.
The preparation team said, "The nominee merely happened to run into Judge Jeong and Yang at a private gathering held around February 2022 that was later made public. He did not meet or contact them afterward."
It explained that the gathering took place about two years before the arrest-warrant reviews involving Yang and that Kim could not have anticipated any future investigation or warrant applications at the time.
In particular, it emphasized that Judge Jeong was not involved in reviewing the warrants in the case. The two arrest warrants for Yang were reviewed by different warrant judges unrelated to Judge Jeong, and both were rejected.
The preparation team rebutted the allegation that Kim had used his past photograph to exert influence over the trial, saying, "The nominee did not contact or make any request to Judge Jeong in connection with the case, nor was he involved in the warrant review. The allegation does not accord with the facts or the chronological sequence of events."
Regarding the circumstances of the contact with the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, the team reiterated its position that Kim had conveyed a public-interest grievance, not made an improper solicitation.
The preparation team explained that Kim had only conveyed concerns about the possible overseas leakage of domestic technology and unreasonable discrimination against small and medium-sized enterprises, and asked the ministry to ensure that the clinical-trial process was handled fairly and promptly in accordance with regulations. It said he had not requested approval of the treatment, priority review, relaxed review standards, or the omission of procedures. It also denied allegations that political donations had been promised in exchange for conveying the grievance.
The preparation team argued that statements appearing in a recorded phone call between Yang and a third party were not Kim's statements, and that the third party's one-sided remarks alone could not establish Kim's intentions or an agreement concerning compensation.
Prosecutors issued Kim a deferred-prosecution disposition in December 2024. Kim's side argues that the disposition was improper, saying prosecutors determined that it was difficult to conclude that conveying the grievance itself was illegal and that there had been no improper handling of the matter by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety or actual receipt of money. Kim challenged the decision and filed a constitutional petition with the Constitutional Court of Korea in May of the previous year, seeking its cancellation.
 
[email protected] Choi Eun-sol Reporter