Seoul mayor acquitted on appeal in political funds case

The Seoul High Court found insufficient evidence that Oh asked political broker Myung Tae-kyun to conduct opinion polls and arranged for a supporter to pay for them. It therefore overturned the lower court's guilty verdict and acquitted Oh. The decision matters because the original conviction could have ended his mayoral tenure if finalized.

The Seoul Central District Court had fined Oh 10 million won and ordered him to forfeit 21 million won. It found that he commissioned five polls through Myung and arranged for Kim Han-jung to cover the cost. The appellate court questioned whether selected parts of Myung's testimony were reliable enough to support a criminal conviction.

The special counsel team said it would appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal observers described an overturning as relatively unlikely because the appellate court is the final court for factual findings. Unless the acquittal changes, Oh can continue serving as mayor without this case threatening his position.

South Korea's Political Funds Act regulates how political money is raised, received, reported, and spent. Its purpose is to make campaign financing transparent and prevent candidates or political actors from gaining support through hidden or improper payments. The law also seeks to stop donors from disguising contributions or routing them through other people.

In this case, prosecutors alleged that Oh received results from opinion polls and arranged for Kim Han-jung to pay 33 million won through Kang Cheol-won. That allegation mattered because a supporter allegedly covered costs connected to political activity, rather than the money being handled openly by the candidate or campaign. Oh denied criminal wrongdoing.

The courts disagreed about whether the evidence met the criminal standard. The lower court convicted Oh, while the appellate court found the proof insufficient. The case shows why political-funding rules matter: hidden campaign-related payments can trigger criminal proceedings, but conviction still requires reliable evidence proving the alleged conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that Oh received the results of 10 opinion polls from Myung Tae-kyun before the April 2021 Seoul mayoral by-election. It said Oh arranged for longtime supporter Kim Han-jung to pay 33 million won for those results through Kang Cheol-won. Those figures formed the financial and polling core of the case.

The lower court accepted a narrower version of the allegation. It found Oh guilty of commissioning five opinion polls through Myung and arranging for Kim to cover their cost. It imposed a 10 million won fine and ordered Oh to forfeit 21 million won. The judgment also relied on surrounding contacts and payment activity.

The appellate court did not accept that the figures alone proved a crime. It said Myung's testimony was inconsistent or exaggerated in many areas and lacked enough supporting evidence. The special counsel team plans to appeal, but the acquittal currently removes the risk that these alleged payments will cost Oh his office.

The lower court said Myung's testimony was credible in parts and used it to find that Oh commissioned five polls and arranged payment. It also considered circumstantial evidence. Oh had contacted Myung about election strategy, poll results reached Oh's camp, and Kang Cheol-won helped review the surveys. Kim Han-jung also made substantial payments.

The appellate court focused on weaknesses in that evidence. It said Myung often failed to separate personal knowledge from speculation or exaggeration. When questioned about unfavorable matters, he sometimes gave vague answers or said he did not remember. The court also found that parts of his testimony conflicted with objective evidence and other participants' accounts.

The judges further questioned why Myung had not made allegations about Oh during an earlier political-funding investigation. They said selected testimony could not safely support conviction without strong corroboration. Because the prosecution did not meet the required standard, the High Court overturned the conviction and acquitted Oh.

The standard beyond a reasonable doubt is the prosecution's demanding burden in a criminal case. It must present reliable evidence that establishes every required part of the alleged offense. The judge does not need absolute certainty, but reasonable alternative explanations must be eliminated before a guilty verdict is justified.

The presiding judge explained that a conviction must rest on rigorous evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court said even if parts of a defendant's testimony seem questionable or suspicious, that concern cannot replace proof. In Oh's case, the prosecution needed to establish that he requested the polls and arranged the payment.

The appellate court decided that the evidence fell short. It found substantial problems with Myung's testimony and insufficient corroboration from other evidence. That did not necessarily prove every allegation false. It meant the prosecution had not met the level of proof required for criminal punishment, so the court had to rule for Oh.

The lower court's 10 million won fine could have cost Oh his mayoral post if the conviction became final. The appellate acquittal removes that immediate consequence. Unless the Supreme Court overturns the ruling, Oh will no longer face losing his office because of these political-funding charges.

The Seoul Metropolitan Government said it would continue Oh's main policy initiatives. These include improving residents' quality of life, combating loneliness, supporting vulnerable groups, and assisting young people. Oh also thanked voters who gave him another opportunity to serve Seoul and apologized for the disruption caused by the investigation and hearings.

The special counsel team plans to appeal. Legal observers said reversal is relatively unlikely because the appellate court is the final instance for reviewing factual findings, while the Supreme Court mainly examines legal questions. The People Power Party welcomed the ruling, while the Democratic Party expressed regret. Oh's administration can continue without immediate interruption.

A Supreme Court usually serves as a court of legal review, not a complete second trial. It examines whether the lower courts interpreted and applied the law correctly, followed proper procedures, and used legally valid reasoning. It generally does not rehear every witness or independently reassess all evidence from the beginning.

That distinction matters in Oh's case because the Seoul High Court's decision centered on factual credibility. The judges questioned Myung Tae-kyun's inconsistent testimony and found insufficient corroboration for the prosecution's account. They also assessed contacts, poll deliveries, payment records, and other participants' statements.

The article describes the appellate court as the final instance for factual findings. Legal observers therefore said the Supreme Court is relatively unlikely to overturn the acquittal, although the special counsel team will appeal. The top court could still examine legal errors, but it normally would not simply replace the High Court's assessment of witness reliability with its own.