Is Oh Se-hoon's acquittal a distortion of the law? Judge Koo Hoe-geun reported over Supreme Court precedents cited in the ruling

[Financial News] The controversy over the legal basis for the ruling has entered a new phase: after Oh Se-hoon’s case for violating the Political Funds Act was overturned from a first-trial conviction to an appellate acquittal, Judge Koo Hoe-geun, who led the appeal, was also reported for the crime of distortion of law.
After the first-trial conviction, Lee & Ko joined the existing D&A LLC defense team, and an acquittal followed. Now, how the appellate panel applied Supreme Court precedents has emerged as an issue.
According to legal circles on the 4th, lawyer Kyung-ho Kim recently filed a complaint with the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (SCIA), accusing Judge Koo Hoe-geun, presiding judge of the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 7, which acquitted Oh on appeal, of distortion of law.
The civic group Citizens’ Action for Establishing Judicial Justice (Judicial Justice Civic Action) also filed a complaint against Judge Koo, accusing him of distortion of law and abuse of authority. Kim argued that although Judge Koo cited Supreme Court precedents on contributions under the Political Funds Act in his written ruling, he did not properly apply those legal principles in reaching his decision.
The complaint also alleged that the judge had intended to give a particular person an unlawful or unjust benefit by deliberately distorting statutes and precedents. Judicial Justice Civic Action likewise took issue with the case, alleging that Judge Koo reached a conclusion favorable to a particular person in assessing the evidence and applying the law.
The central question raised by the complaint goes beyond simply challenging the acquittal: did the panel knowingly depart from the meaning of existing Supreme Court precedents and deliberately reach a different conclusion?
Earlier, on July 22, the Seoul Central District Court found part of the allegations proven—that Oh had commissioned some opinion polls from Myeong Tae-gyun and arranged for Kim Han-jung to pay the costs on his behalf—and sentenced Oh to a fine of 10 million won and an additional forfeiture of 21 million won.
However, on the 23rd, the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 7 overturned the lower court’s ruling and acquitted Oh. Kang Cheol-won, a former Seoul deputy mayor for political affairs, and Kim, who were indicted alongside Oh, were also acquitted.
A key part of the appellate ruling was its assessment of the credibility of Myeong’s testimony.
The trial court considered Myeong’s testimony, records of the delivery of opinion-poll data and the circumstances surrounding Kim’s payments, among other things, and found part of the allegation—that Oh had the costs of the polls paid on his behalf—to be proven.
By contrast, the appellate court found that Myeong’s testimony mixed firsthand accounts with conjecture or exaggeration, and that some of it did not accord with the objective circumstances.
The appellate panel also reviewed a recording of a phone call between Myeong and Kim on March 6, 2021. It focused, among other things, on indications that Kim had tried to verify details without having sufficient knowledge of the specific conversations between Oh and Myeong.
The panel also considered that Myeong had conducted opinion polls related to the Seoul mayoral by-election before contacting Oh’s side, and had shared materials with other political figures, including Kim Chong-in, then chair of the People Power Party’s emergency committee.
Considering these and other circumstances together, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the charges—that Oh commissioned specific opinion polls and asked Kim to pay the costs on his behalf—had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The legal issues here fall into two categories.
One concerns the requirements for a contribution under the Political Funds Act. Even if the delivery of opinion-poll results and payment of the costs by a third party are established, it must be considered separately whether those costs constituted political funds for a particular politician and how the defendant was involved in providing them.
The other concerns how the court assessed the evidence in determining whether those requirements were met. The complainants argue that the panel applied the law in a way that departed from the intent of existing precedents. However, the appellate ruling also cited as a key basis for its decision whether the commissioning of the polls and the request to have their costs paid on someone’s behalf had themselves been sufficiently proven, in addition to the legal principles governing contributions.
Analysts say it is necessary to distinguish between whether the appellate court’s interpretation differs from existing Supreme Court precedents and whether any such difference amounts to the crime of distortion of law.
The crime of distortion of law applies when judges or others deliberately distort the application of statutes or the assessment of evidence with the aim of giving another person an unlawful or unjust benefit.
The prevailing view is that a difference in legal interpretation, or the fact that a ruling was overturned by a higher court, does not by itself constitute a crime. The statutory requirements—including deliberate distortion and the purpose of providing an unjust benefit—must be proven separately. 
In particular, when an appellate court, as in this case, reaches a different assessment of a key witness’s credibility and the probative value of individual pieces of evidence, the issue may be how to distinguish ordinary judicial assessment of evidence from deliberate distortion punishable as a crime.
After the first-trial conviction in Oh’s case, attention turned to the role of the large law-firm defense team as Lee & Ko joined and the original firm, D&A LLC, continued to participate in the appellate arguments.
However, just as it cannot be concluded that strengthening the defense team led to the acquittal, some argue that the fact that a complaint was filed over the acquittal does not by itself establish that the panel distorted the law. 
A lawyer who formerly served as a senior judge said, “This complaint is noteworthy because it raises the question of whether the appellate court’s application of the law and assessment of evidence can be grounds for criminal liability.” The lawyer added, “The key will be how investigators compare the specific reasoning in the Supreme Court precedents at issue with the structure of the appellate ruling as they review the complaint, and whether evidence supporting deliberate distortion of the law is presented.” 
[email protected] Yoo Seon-jun Reporter