The Korean words for "favor" and "petition" are often used interchangeably in daily conversation, but their dictionary definitions differ. A favor is a request made to another person, while a petition is a demand a resident makes to an administrative agency. In legal circles, the two words carry distinctly different weight. Criminal law does not regulate ordinary petitions, but a favor sought from a public official in connection with official duties, accompanied by money or goods, is punished as bribery. Even those who are not public officials can face charges of receiving or giving bribes in breach of trust if they handle another party's affairs, accept an improper request and gain property or financial benefits.
The problem is that a public official who accepts money or entertainment can escape bribery charges under criminal law if the request has no connection to their own duties or if prosecutors cannot prove the payment was made in exchange for a favor. The case of the so-called "Mercedes-Benz prosecutor," who was acquitted despite receiving a Mercedes-Benz and other valuables, is the leading example. In response, the National Assembly enacted the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, widely known as the Kim Young-ran Act, in 2015. The law bans improper solicitations of public officials and penalizes the acceptance of money and goods regardless of whether it relates to official duties or was given in exchange for a favor.
Even this law has a loophole. One can claim the conduct was not a favor but the relay of a petition in the public interest. The Kim Young-ran Act does not apply when elected officials such as National Assembly members, political parties and civic groups pass along a third party's grievance for a public purpose. Lawmakers, who hold legislative power, in effect left themselves an escape route.
Kim Seung-won, the ruling party lawmaker nominated as justice minister, is embroiled in allegations that in 2021 he acted on a request from a broker surnamed Yang and asked the then head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety to expedite approval of a clinical trial for a new drug developed by the venture firm Genencell. The opposition calls it an improper solicitation, while Kim's side counters that it was the relay of a petition in the public interest. In connection with the drug, Genencell chief executive surnamed Kang was sentenced in a first trial to three years in prison, suspended for five years, on charges including submitting false data to the ministry to win clinical approval. Shares of Sejong Medical, which had invested in Genencell on the belief that the trial was proceeding, plunged, giving rise to suspicions of stock manipulation. Even granting every benefit of the doubt that the purpose was in the public interest, how can Kim, who relayed such operators' petitions to the licensing authority, be installed as justice minister?
