Chief Judge Jee Gui-yeon speaks about media access ahead of the trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol on charges of leading an insurrection at Courtroom 417 of the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the morning of April 21 last year. Joint Press Corps
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials has indicted Ji Gui-yeon, a senior judge at the Seoul Northern District Court, on charges of violating the anti-graft law over allegations that he was treated to drinks by lawyers. The office declined to indict him on bribery charges, concluding it was difficult to establish that the hospitality was provided in exchange for any official action.
The CIO’s third investigation division, headed by senior prosecutor Lee Dae-hwan, said on the 4th that it indicted the judge without detention under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.
The judge is accused of receiving hospitality after drinking with two lawyers at a reservation-only bar in Cheongdam-dong, Seoul’s Gangnam district, around August 2023, allowing them to settle a tab totaling 4.09 million won.
The anti-graft law bars public officials from accepting more than 1 million won in money or hospitality from the same person on a single occasion, regardless of whether it relates to their duties or under what pretext. The CIO concluded that the charge was established based on the size of the bill and the circumstances under which the lawyers covered the cost.
The office dropped the bribery charge, however. It found it difficult to establish a connection to his judicial duties or a quid pro quo relationship, noting that the lawyers had never taken on cases assigned to the judge.
The allegations surfaced in May last year when the Democratic Party of Korea claimed the judge had been entertained at an establishment employing female hostesses and released a photograph showing him with a group at what was presumed to be a specific bar in Gangnam. A civic group subsequently filed a complaint with the CIO accusing him of bribery and violating the anti-graft law.
The judge’s side pushed back against the indictment. In a statement, his lawyer said he had briefly attended a gathering with two junior colleagues and left immediately afterward. Taking into account his relationship with the junior colleagues, the circumstances of the gathering and, in particular, the fact that they had not handled any work related to the client’s duties over the past decade, the lawyer said there was no connection to his official duties and no quid pro quo. He added that the CIO’s findings of fact and application of the law were unreasonable, calling the outcome bewildering and deeply regrettable.