A political drama is unfolding at the heart of South Korean politics, centered on Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon and businessman Myeong Tae-gyun, who is a key figure in the ongoing special investigation related to alleged political interference by President Yoon Suk-yeol and First Lady Kim Keon-hee. What was once dismissed as a “marginal campaign dispute” is now spiraling into a full-scale legal and constitutional showdown.
The National Assembly Hearing – A Turning Point
On October 23, during the Seoul Metropolitan Government audit conducted by the National Assembly’s Public Administration and Security Committee, Myeong Tae-gyun appeared as a witness and delivered explosive testimony. He claimed that he had been officially notified by the special counsel that he would face a direct confrontation with Mayor Oh Se-hoon on November 8, as part of a criminal investigation.
“If I speak everything here today, Mayor Oh will simply tailor his answers to the confrontation,” Myeong said, suggesting that he was intentionally withholding some details ahead of the formal investigative procedure.
Mayor Oh responded cautiously, stating:
“I cannot answer specific questions at this stage. My statements here may be misused or prejudge the investigation.”
However, despite these initial reservations, the hearing quickly escalated into a high-stakes confrontation.
Seven Meetings, One Political Narrative
Myeong claimed that he had met Mayor Oh a total of seven times in the lead-up to the 2021 Seoul mayoral by-election, during which Oh was competing for the People Power Party’s nomination.
According to Myeong:
Six out of seven meetings were allegedly attended by former lawmaker Kim Young-sun, who is said to have personally arranged the encounters.
These meetings, Myeong insists, were directly related to non-public polling data that he provided to assist Mayor Oh in defeating rival candidate Na Kyung-won, who at the time was leading in public opinion surveys.
“The prosecution has already conducted a forensic analysis of my phone. Everything is there—calls, messages, instructions,” Myeong testified, directly contradicting Mayor Oh’s previous claim that they had met “only twice.”
“He Called Me Crying”: The 2021 Tunnel Phone Call
One of the most dramatic moments of the testimony came when Myeong described a phone call allegedly made by Oh Se-hoon on January 22, 2021:
“I was passing through Jangbok Tunnel. Mayor Oh called me in tears. The driver at the time was Kim Tae-yeol. He said, ‘Na Kyung-won is ahead in the polls. I need survey numbers that show I can win.’”
Myeong further added that these emotional appeals were repeated in later meetings at restaurants including Song Chef and a traditional cheonggukjang (soybean paste stew) restaurant.
The Apartment Promise – Alleged Quid Pro Quo
During the hearing, Democratic Party lawmaker Yoon Kun-young asked whether any quid pro quo had been offered in exchange for the polling services.
Myeong’s answer stunned the committee:
“Yes. He said he would buy me an apartment.”
He continued:
“Even today, my wife told me to go get the key. Mayor, you promised! Where is it?”
Mayor Oh flatly denied the allegation:
“That is completely false. I never received help from him. Consider this with common sense.”
But the political damage had already been done. The public hearing, broadcast live, instantly became headline news across the country.
Rising Tensions in the Assembly
Lawmakers from the ruling People Power Party attempted to discredit Myeong, suggesting he was acting under the influence of the opposition. One lawmaker referred to a so-called “Democratic Party connection,” pointing out that Democratic lawmaker Park Ju-min had visited Myeong while in detention.
Myeong responded sharply:
“If you are locked in a 0.7-pyeong solitary cell, you meet whoever comes. Don’t twist the facts. Did only Democratic lawmakers visit me? People from your side came and stayed the whole day.”
The atmosphere in the committee room was described as “near-chaotic,” with multiple interruptions from the chair and raised voices from both sides.
The Core Allegation: Illicit Use of Non-Public Polling
At the center of this scandal lies the accusation that Mayor Oh received 13 sets of unpublished polling data from a think tank allegedly controlled by Myeong, the Future Korea Research Institute. The surveys were claimed to have been tailored to manipulate voter sentiment ahead of the 2021 by-election.
Adding to the allegations:
A businessman and known political sponsor, Kim Han-jung, is accused of paying 33 million won on behalf of Oh, by transferring funds to the personal account of Kang Hye-kyung, a research institute staff member.
Myeong claims this entire financial trail is preserved in forensic data already seized by prosecutors.
Legal Fault Lines – Could This Case Lead to Criminal Indictment?
While the political drama surrounding Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon and businessman Myeong Tae-gyun has captivated the South Korean public, the implications go far beyond political theater. At its core, this case raises profound legal questions that could define the contours of political accountability in South Korea for years to come.
Below is a breakdown of the key legal issues now under investigation by the special counsel team.
1. Unpublished Polling as an Illegal Campaign Contribution
In the United States, campaign finance law strictly regulates the provision of services that have material value to candidates. Similarly, South Korea’s Public Official Election Act (Article 254) prohibits “the provision or promise of money, goods, or anything of value for the purpose of influencing an election.”
📌 If Myeong provided unpublished polling data—which has clear strategic value in a competitive primary—free of charge or in exchange for political favors, this may constitute an illegal campaign contribution.
🔍 Why This Matters Legally:
Polling data is recognized as a “political asset.”
If proven, Mayor Oh could be charged with accepting illegal campaign support, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and potential loss of office.
2. “Apartment Promise” – A Textbook Bribery Allegation
The most explosive claim is that Mayor Oh promised to buy Myeong an apartment in exchange for election-related assistance.
Under Korean Criminal Law (Articles 129–133), bribery does not require money to actually be exchanged. A promise of future benefit is sufficient to establish a crime—this principle mirrors U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of bribery under the McDonnell and Blagojevich cases.
💡 Key Precedent: In 2019, the Korean Supreme Court ruled that “a verbal promise, if made with corrupt intention and tied to official duty, is enough to constitute completed bribery (기수).”
✅ If the promise was made with the understanding that Myeong would assist his campaign, this could trigger:
Bribery charges (up to life imprisonment in aggravated cases),
Violation of Election Law (Article 230) concerning vote-buying or compensation for election support.
3. Third-Party Bribery – The “Future Korea Research Institute” Question
Even if Mayor Oh did not receive funds directly, the fact that polling expenses were allegedly paid through a third-party account raises the specter of third-party bribery, a concept well-established in Korean law.
Criminal Act Article 130: Punishes a public official who causes a bribe to be given to a third party in exchange for influence or favors.
This legal framework was previously applied to former President Park Geun-hye in the K-Sports and Mir Foundation case, where corporations made donations to third-party foundations allegedly in exchange for policy favors.
📌 Implication:
If the special counsel can prove that money flowed from political sponsors to a proxy entity (the research institute) for the benefit of Mayor Oh, the law treats it as direct bribery.
4. Political Funds Act Violations
South Korea’s Political Funds Act is one of the strictest in the OECD, requiring all political funds to be reported through designated official accounts. If funds were secretly transferred to pay for polling or campaign activities, this constitutes a clear violation.
Unauthorized donations,
Use of private accounts,
Non-disclosure of campaign services
…all fall under criminal sanction and could result in forfeiture of office and criminal penalties.
5. Statute of Limitations – Is This Still Prosecutable?
Yes.
Election Law Violations: Up to 10 years when linked to loss of office.
Bribery: Up to 15 years if the underlying offense carries a sentence of 10+ years.
➡️ Since the alleged acts occurred in 2021, they remain fully within the prosecutable window.
What the Special Counsel Must Prove
Ultimately, the fate of this case will turn on whether investigators can establish three critical elements:
| Legal Element | Burden of Proof | What Investigators Are Looking At |
|---|---|---|
| Value Exchange | Was there a benefit promised or given? | Apartment promise, polling services |
| Official Capacity | Was the promise linked to future office? | Oh’s candidacy and election prospects |
| Intent & Agreement | Was there an understanding of exchange? | Recorded calls, messages, witness testimony |
If all three are proven, Mayor Oh could face criminal indictment, removal from office, and potential imprisonment—a seismic moment in South Korean political history.
No comments:
Post a Comment