A String of Complaints Against Cho Hee-dae ... Uphill Battle to Prove Criminal Liability in Abuse-of-Authority and Expense Allegations

[Financial News] A string of complaints have been filed concerning Cho Hee-dae, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Korea, but legal circles say there are considerable hurdles to clear before actual criminal liability can be established. That is because the abuse-of-authority allegation in the process of nominating Supreme Court justices requires proof that the exercise of authority was unlawful, while the allegation of improper use of business promotion expenses requires establishing how the funds were actually spent and whether Chief Justice Cho was involved.
According to legal circles on the 19th, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) has received complaints concerning the controversy over Chief Justice Cho's delays in nominating Supreme Court justices and his written nominations, as well as allegations involving the payment of encouragement funds and the use of business promotion expenses. The CIO previously assigned the case related to Supreme Court justice nominations to Investigation Division 1. 
Oh Dong-woon, head of the CIO, said earlier that at least six complaints related to Chief Justice Cho had been received, during a parliamentary audit by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 13th. Asked whether the CIO had requested materials from the Supreme Court of Korea concerning allegations of delays in nominations, he replied, "We have not specifically requested any materials." The CIO later said it was difficult to confirm whether it had requested materials related to the business promotion expense allegations, as that would concern the progress of the investigation. 
The main issues in the case related to Supreme Court justice nominations are whether the offense of obstructing the exercise of rights through abuse of official authority and the offense of dereliction of duty were committed. To bring an abuse-of-authority charge, investigators must consider not only whether Chief Justice Cho abused authority granted by law, but also whether that obstructed the president's exercise of specific rights. For dereliction of duty, the key question is likewise whether he consciously abandoned a legal duty without justifiable cause.
The allegations concerning business promotion expenses are different in nature. In its regular audit in August, the Board of Audit and Inspection confirmed that the Supreme Court of Korea had paid its justices an average of 2 million won a month in cash as encouragement payments from 2022 through April 2024. It also noted that the court had purchased wine worth some 100 million won using business promotion expenses, while recording the purpose of the spending unclearly.
An additional allegation has emerged that the number of people attending meals was inflated during the disbursement of business promotion expenses. The National Court Administration says Chief Justice Cho was not involved in the matter and that the discrepancy in the recorded number of attendees was a staff member's mistake.
Legal circles say the audit finding that the business promotion expenses were improperly disbursed should be distinguished from whether a criminal offense was committed. Investigators, they say, need to verify the actual purpose and use of the spending and determine whether Chief Justice Cho acted intentionally and was involved.
Kang Seong-sin, managing attorney at Haenae Law Office, said, "The first thing to examine is whether the business promotion expenses were used properly," noting, "In some cases, the scope of work-related expenses is unclear, so the priority is to distinguish whether the actual purpose was personal or the spending was necessary for work."
Kim Seung-hyeon, managing attorney at JR Law Firm, said, "Even if the business promotion expenses were misused for personal purposes, it would still be necessary to separately prove that Chief Justice Cho acted intentionally," adding, "Since it is also possible that staff handled the matter on their own, it may not be easy to hold an individual criminally liable."
Kim also noted that legal interpretations of the exercise of nomination authority differ, including in relation to the abuse-of-authority allegation concerning Supreme Court justice nominations, and predicted that neither allegation would easily lead to criminal punishment.
The allegation of improper use of business promotion expenses has also been reported to the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency. Civic groups filed complaints on the 16th against Chief Justice Cho and others on suspicion of preparing and using false official documents and causing losses to the state treasury, among other offenses. Kim Ji-yong, head of the agency, previously indicated at a National Assembly confirmation hearing that an investigation could be conducted if complaints were filed over the allegations.
A lawyer who previously served as a chief prosecutor said, "In this case, what will determine the course of the investigation is likely to be how much objective evidence can be secured to support each individual allegation, rather than the number of complaints," predicting, "Since separate legal analysis of the exercise of nomination authority and verification of the facts surrounding the disbursement of business promotion expenses are required, the investigative authorities' next steps will draw attention." 
[email protected] Yoo Seon-jun Reporter