South Korea's Supreme Court has overturned an appeals court ruling that sentenced a former police officer to prison for leaking investigative information in the illegal filming case involving footballer Hwang Ui-jo, 34, who plays for Alanyaspor. The court held that a lower court's acquittal cannot be reversed on circumstantial evidence alone without further examination of evidence.
The first division of the Supreme Court, with Justice Seo Kyung-hwan as the presiding judge, recently vacated the ruling that handed a one-year prison term to the former officer, identified by his surname Cho, on charges including disclosure of official secrets, and sent the case back to the Seoul Central District Court, according to legal sources on the 1st.
Cho was arrested and indicted in July 2024 on charges of passing information about the Hwang investigation to an acquaintance, a lawyer identified as A, in January of that year while working at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's cyber investigation unit. Investigators found that the information was relayed through A to a broker identified as B. The case came to light in February of that year when Hwang's side filed a request to remove the investigator from the case, saying investigative information had been leaked.
The trial court acquitted Cho. It said the charges concerning the leak of search-and-seizure information had not been proven to the point of certainty, and that the motive, trigger and purpose of the alleged disclosure were unclear.
The appeals court reached a different conclusion and sentenced Cho to one year in prison. It cited the close relationship between Cho and A, along with circumstances indicating that the search-and-seizure information had been passed from Cho to A, then to B, and then to Hwang. The appeals court said phone records showed calls between A and B immediately before and after the search and seizure. On Telegram messages in which B sent Hwang information about the search and seizure, the court said B had repeatedly mentioned words unrelated to the search-and-seizure information, that the messages appeared to relay information B had heard, and that they did not appear to have been fabricated.
The Supreme Court reversed that finding, ruling that the appeals court had violated the principles of trial-centered proceedings and direct examination. Convicting a defendant on circumstantial evidence alone, without direct evidence, requires proof overwhelmingly strong enough to conclude that the defendant committed the crime, the court said, adding that the circumstantial evidence submitted by prosecutors was insufficient to establish that. Even if it had doubts about the trial court's conclusion, the appeals court should not have immediately reversed the ruling but should have proceeded carefully after steps such as witness examination or additional evidence review, the Supreme Court said.
