Prosecutors Excluded an Informant's Statement when Investigating the Bribery of Yoon Woo-jin in 2015

[경향신문]

On July 9, 2019, the Liberty Korea Party (currently the People Power Party) floor leaders view a video recording of a phone conversation between a Newstapa reporter and prosecutor general nominee Yoon Seok-youl in December 2012 concerning the alleged bribery of Yoon Woo-jin, former chief of the Yongsan Tax Office, at a meeting to discuss the party’s strategy on the floor in the National Assembly. Yonhap News

When the Prosecution Service dropped the bribery charge against Yoon Woo-jin, former chief of the Yongsan Tax Office, they excluded a statement from an informant who provided a lead in the investigation claiming that it lacked proof and it wasn’t reliable. At the same time, the prosecutors did not question the fact that Yoon had fled the country as well as the circumstantial evidence that suggested he forced false statements. The latest findings suggest that the prosecutors welcomed factors favorable to Yoon, while they were reluctant to accept factors that worked against Yoon when deciding to drop the charge against him. Yoon is the older brother of Yoon Dae-jin (director of planning at the Institute of Justice), a senior prosecutor known as a close acquaintance of former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl.

Yoon Woo-jin underwent a police investigation for allegedly receiving bribes in cash, gifts of beef, and golf expenses from Kim, a meat importer, from 2010 until 2011. The police did not detain Yoon but sent the case to the Prosecution Service recommending the state press charges against Yoon in August 2013. The police believed that Yoon received bribes in various forms including golf games and in exchange introduced Kim to officials from the National Tax Service, allowing him to get away with a slap on the wrist from a tax probe.

The police identified 21 occasions when Kim treated Yoon to a game of golf by looking into the phone records of a phone registered under another name, but used by Yoon; data from phone towers; toll gate records on the way to the golf course; and the golf dates marked on the calendar in Kim’s office. They also secured a statement from the general manager of the golf club, who said that Yoon visited the golf course more than twice a month on average, and that Kim paid when Kim accompanied him and that Yoon paid with Kim’s credit card when Kim did not accompany him.

But the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office dropped the charge on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (bribery) in February 2015 claiming that evidence was lacking. According to a document on the decision to drop the case, which the Kyunghyang Shinmun obtained on October 5, the prosecutors put more weight on the argument presented by Yoon, who denied the charge, than the results of the police investigation.

Kim was suspected of paying for golf expenses in advance for Yoon to play golf with whomever he was lobbying, such as the National Tax Service officials. But the prosecutors claimed that they could not find any evidence suggesting that Yoon exerted his influence on the tax probe other than that he played golf with the National Tax Service officials. They also said that the deposit that Kim made to pay for golf expenses could not be seen as a bribe, for they were available to a third party other than Yoon.

As for the reason why the names of Yoon and the National Tax Service officials were marked on Kim’s calendar, the prosecutors said, “There is no evidence to prove that Kim was introduced to the officials through Yoon, and we have yet to confirm any phone records.” They added, “We could not find any clear evidence whatsoever that suggested that Yoon received bribes of golf games paid by Kim in exchange for any work-related affairs or that he was treated to golf for helping Kim with tasks overseen by other civil servants.”

Prosecutors claimed the statement by A, the informant and also an employee at Kim’s company, lacked credibility. A said that he handed 20 million won in cash to Yoon upon orders from Kim, but according to the prosecutors, A handed Yoon a sealed envelope, but never checked to see what was inside. The prosecutors said, “It is not clear as to whether there was any cash inside the envelope and whether it amounted to 20 million won.” They also mentioned how A changed some of the details in his statement concerning the time and place that he delivered the envelope and said, “It is questionable as to whether he actually delivered an envelope with money.” They also argued that A had clashed with Kim over his retirement pay and said, “These facts left room to doubt the motive of his statement.”

However, the Prosecution Service did not mention in detail the fact that relevant parties had acknowledged the charges and later reversed their statements; the circumstantial evidence that suggested that Yoon tried to destroy evidence, such as how he told the general manager of the golf course to “not cooperate in the police investigation”; and the fact that Yoon fled the country. They also failed to mention the statement by an important witness who said that he personally heard Kim say that he bribed Yoon and was able to get off with paying only 500 million won in taxes, when he could have coughed up 4 billion won.

The Prosecution Service, which dropped the charge against Yoon six years ago, is recently accelerating its investigation into allegations that Yoon had a “sponsor.” Anti-Corruption and Major Crimes Division 1 at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (chief prosecutor Jeong Yong-hwan) arrested Choi, an acquaintance of Yoon, on October 2.

Some suspect that the second prosecutors’ investigation of Yoon is actually targeting former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl. Yoon Woo-jin fled to Thailand during the police investigation and was arrested and transferred back to Korea, but he was not arrested. The prosecutors dismissed the warrant, which the police request six times. In Yoon Seok-youl’s confirmation hearing at the National Assembly in 2019, lawmakers of the Liberty Korea Party (currently the People Power Party) raised an issue about how Yoon Seok-youl had introduced Lee Nam-seok, a younger attorney, to Yoon Woo-jin when he underwent the investigation.