Special Counsel Demands Eight-Year Sentence for Associate in Embezzlement Case
A special counsel team investigating allegations concerning South Korea’s former first lady, Kim Keon-hee, has requested an eight-year prison sentence for Kim Ye-sung, a close associate of Ms. Kim’s family, in a high-profile embezzlement case. The verdict for Kim Ye-sung is slated for February 5 of the upcoming year.
The prosecution, during a sentencing hearing presided over by Judge Lee Hyun-kyung at the Seoul Central District Court, also sought the confiscation of 432,338,463 Korean won (approximately $330,000 USD). Kim Ye-sung stands accused of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, specifically the charge of embezzlement. Prosecutors argued that Kim had exploited the corporate structure to mask personal financial dealings as legitimate business activities, thereby securing undue tax benefits. The prosecution further highlighted Kim’s attempts to flee the country and the disposal of mobile phones as evidence of his poor conduct following the alleged offenses.
Kim Ye-sung became a focal point of the special counsel’s inquiry due to suspicions that he leveraged his connections with Ms. Kim to secure preferential investments from major corporations and financial institutions. Notably, IMS Mobility, a car rental company in which Kim was a shareholder and involved in its establishment, received a substantial investment of 18.4 billion Korean won (approximately $14 million USD) in June 2023, during the second year of the current administration.
The special counsel’s indictment detailed accusations that Kim improperly siphoned approximately 4.69 billion Korean won (around $3.6 million USD) from these investment funds through a wholly-owned subsidiary, InnoBest Korea. These funds were allegedly used for personal loans, housing expenses, and the education of his children, with further allegations of paying fictitious salaries to his spouse. While the prosecution sought the confiscation of roughly 400 million Korean won, they clarified that amounts attributable to his children or IMS Mobility CEO Cho Young-tak were excluded from this demand.
Defense Contests Jurisdiction and Connection to First Lady
The defense team for Kim Ye-sung has challenged the indictment, asserting that the case does not fall under the purview of the Act on the Appointment of Special Prosecutors. In their closing arguments, Kim’s legal counsel contended that the investigation, which stemmed from suspicions of investment impropriety and fund misuse linked to Ms. Kim, had ultimately failed to establish any connection to power-related corruption or the former first lady herself. The defense characterized the remaining charges as purely personal financial transactions of the defendant.
Furthermore, the defense pointed to the special counsel’s handling of other investigations, including those related to alleged collusion between religious groups and political figures, specifically mentioning the Unification Church. They argued that the special counsel had declined to investigate certain aspects involving the Unification Church and the Democratic Party, transferring those matters to the police. Consequently, the defense argued that Kim’s case, which they maintain is unrelated to Ms. Kim, should similarly be excluded from the special counsel’s investigation and referred to the police. They accused the prosecution of engaging in selective prosecution by arbitrarily excluding some cases while pursuing others as related.
The defense also raised arguments regarding the nature of InnoBest Korea, stating that as a wholly-owned entity by Kim, the charge of embezzlement was inapplicable. They further asserted that the funds in question were either legitimate business expenses or loans, and therefore, no actual harm was inflicted upon the company.
Defendant’s Personal Statement and Plea for Leniency
In his final statement to the court, Kim Ye-sung recounted a past association with a prosecutor couple approximately 12 to 13 years prior, describing one of them as having been demoted for upholding principles. He noted that this prosecutor eventually became president. Kim stated that he was subsequently forced out of his company under the pretext that his ties to a specific politician posed a risk to the business.
Kim acknowledged his mistakes in attempting to reduce tax burdens and company expenses, expressing deep regret for his “wrong methods and choices.” However, he firmly denied any direct link to Ms. Kim, asserting, “I have never been to the Hannam-dong official residence or the Presidential Office.”
He addressed the media portrayal that labeled him as “Kim Keon-hee’s butler,” refuting the notion that he was a parasitic figure exploiting someone in power. Instead, Kim presented himself as an entrepreneur who embarked on business ventures with specific objectives. He concluded his statement by pleading for leniency, stating his intention to reflect on the tax-related issues, take full responsibility, and expressed a desire to protect his family and reintegrate into society as a law-abiding citizen.
