Special counsel appeals Seoul mayor's acquittal in political funds case

An acquittal is a court decision that the prosecution has not established the defendant’s guilt under the law. It ends the conviction at that stage, although the decision may still be challenged through an appeal. Here, the appellate court acquitted Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon after reversing the lower court’s partial conviction.

The special counsel’s appeal is a request for further judicial review. Min Joong-ki’s team argues that the appellate judges wrongly rejected the testimony of Myung Tae-kyun, described as the case’s only direct evidence. The team said that decision exceeded the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.

The appeal does not itself make Oh guilty again. It moves the dispute to the Seoul High Court, which will consider whether the appellate ruling was legally sound. The case therefore remains unresolved, while the special counsel seeks to revive the earlier conviction and its consequences.

The disputed payments concern opinion polls connected to Oh Se-hoon’s campaign for the 2021 Seoul mayoral by-election. Prosecutors alleged that Oh received polls from Myung Tae-kyun on 10 occasions, while a political supporter paid the bills. The central issue is whether those payments counted as political funds connected to Oh.

The total alleged payment was 33 million won, or about $24,700. The article does not provide the cost of each individual poll. Instead, it gives the combined amount for all 10 occasions. Myung is described as a self-proclaimed power broker, and his testimony was the only direct evidence supporting the allegations.

The appellate court overturned the lower court’s partial conviction because it found Myung’s testimony could not be fully trusted. The special counsel disagrees and has appealed. The Seoul High Court will now review the challenged ruling and the evidence surrounding the payments and polls.

The lower court convicted Oh on part of the allegations after finding that the evidence supported a violation. It sentenced him to a 10 million-won fine. The article does not explain every reason behind that court’s assessment, but its decision indicates that it accepted the relevant evidence strongly enough for a partial conviction.

The appellate court took a different view of the central testimony. Myung Tae-kyun’s account was the only direct evidence for the allegations, and the appellate judges ruled that it could not be fully trusted. Because that testimony was central, the court overturned the lower court’s conviction and acquitted Oh.

The special counsel says the appellate court went too far in rejecting Myung’s credibility. It called that decision unlawful and highly inconsistent with common sense. The appeal will ask the Seoul High Court to examine whether the appellate court properly evaluated the evidence and applied the law.

A criminal fine can sometimes carry an additional legal consequence beyond the money owed. In Oh’s case, the article states that finalizing the 10 million-won fine would have stripped him of his position as Seoul mayor. The article does not identify the specific legal provision that creates that consequence.

The lower court’s sentence therefore threatened Oh’s office as well as his finances. It found him partially guilty and imposed the fine over allegations involving political payments for opinion polls. The mayoralty consequence would have applied if that ruling had survived the appeals process and become final.

The appellate court’s acquittal removed that immediate consequence at that stage. However, the special counsel has appealed the acquittal to the Seoul High Court. If a later ruling reinstates the conviction and the fine becomes final, the consequence described in the article could again become relevant. The final outcome remains pending.

A special counsel is generally appointed to handle a particular investigation or prosecution when a case is politically sensitive or requires a focused legal team. The role is to examine allegations, gather and present evidence, make charging decisions where authorized, and argue the case in court. The exact appointment process can vary by legal system.

In this case, special counsel Min Joong-ki’s team pursued allegations that a supporter paid for opinion polls Oh allegedly received from Myung Tae-kyun. The team took the case through the courts and challenged the appellate acquittal. It argued that the court improperly rejected Myung’s testimony.

The team’s appeal shows that its work continues after an adverse ruling. It filed the appeal with the Seoul High Court and asked for review of the appellate decision. The article presents the special counsel as the legal actor defending the allegations, while the courts decide whether the evidence and law support a conviction.

Political funds laws generally regulate how political money is received, spent, recorded, and disclosed. They aim to make campaign financing traceable and to prevent hidden benefits or improper influence. The article identifies the case as a violation of South Korea’s Political Funds Act, but it does not detail the specific provision at issue.

The alleged mechanism is straightforward: Oh allegedly received opinion polls from Myung Tae-kyun, while a political supporter paid 33 million won for them. If those polls served political or campaign purposes, the payment could be treated as political funding connected to Oh. Whether it violated the law depends on the facts and legal rules applied by the court.

The lower court found Oh partially guilty, but the appellate court acquitted him after questioning Myung’s testimony. The special counsel has appealed, arguing that the evidence was wrongly rejected. The High Court’s review will determine whether the alleged payments legally amounted to prohibited political funds.

The principle of free evaluation of evidence means judges generally assess the weight and reliability of evidence through reasoned judgment. They are not required to follow a rigid rule that one type of evidence always outranks another. They must still explain their conclusions and stay within legal and rational boundaries.

For witness testimony, courts examine consistency, detail, plausibility, possible bias, and whether the account fits other evidence. They may compare a witness’s statements with documents and surrounding facts. In this case, Myung Tae-kyun’s testimony was the only direct evidence for the allegations, so its credibility was especially important.

The appellate court ruled that Myung’s testimony could not be fully trusted and overturned Oh’s conviction. The special counsel says rejecting it exceeded the principle’s limits and was inconsistent with common sense. The appeal will test whether the appellate court made a permissible credibility assessment or an unlawful evidentiary judgment.