Kim Man-bae, a major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, and Choi Yoon-gil, a former chairman of Seongnam City Council, were both acquitted at the appeal trial, asking for help with the development project in Daejang-dong.
The Suwon High Court's Criminal Division 2-3 (High Court Judge Park Kwang-seo, Kim Min-ki and Kim Jong-woo) reversed the court case and acquitted Kim, who was sentenced to two and a half years in prison in the first trial on bribery charges on the 7th.
In addition, the court reversed the court case and acquitted Choi Yoon-gil, the former chairman of Seongnam City Council, who was sentenced to four and a half years in the first trial on charges of taking over after fraudulent treatment.
The appeals court explained, "The passing of the construction ordinance was to accept the opinions of the residents of Daejang-dong, not to say that former chairman Choi unfairly exercised his right to proceed." "At that time, Saenuri lawmakers left suddenly, and they would not have expected this," he said. "Not all of Choi Yoon-gil's charges are recognized, and it is not true that he promised Kim Man-bae's bribery."
After the trial, Kim Man-bae said, "I thank the court," and added, "I will faithfully receive the rest of the trial."
In February 2021, Kim was accused of giving 80 million won of former Chairman Choi a request to pass the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation's ordinance on the establishment of the city council because he would make him the chairman of the city council and promised bribes worth a total of 4.22 billion won, including incentives.
Former Chairman Choi is accused of passing the ordinance against the voting principle while lawmakers opposed to the ordinance in 2013 left at Kim's request to pass the "Seongnam Urban Development Corporation" in 2012.
In the process, Choi is also accused of committing fraudulent acts, such as mobilizing dozens of residents to lead protests to pass the ordinance outside the city council meeting hall.
He was completely acquitted of taking bribes and helping to proceed with the business while moving to the party.
I don't know what this ruling means.
Even if you pay a bribe like that to proceed with the business, it seems that it is not illegal to receive a resident's consent.
What a strange trial.