The founder of drugmaker Genencell, named as a central figure in allegations that Rep. Kim Seung-won of the Democratic Party of Korea lobbied on behalf of a new drug, was sentenced to prison in an appeals trial on breach-of-trust charges and taken into custody in the courtroom.
The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 7, presided over by Senior Judge Ku Hoe-keun, overturned the lower court ruling on the 30th and sentenced Kang, identified only by surname, to four years in prison and a 40 million won fine on charges including violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes through breach of trust. After handing down the sentence, the court ordered Kang detained, saying custody was necessary. The first trial had sentenced Kang to three years in prison, suspended for five years.
Kang was indicted on charges including submitting animal testing data to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety that had been falsified or from which unfavorable findings had been omitted, in the course of obtaining approval for clinical trials of a COVID-19 treatment that Genencell was developing.
The appeals court found the lower court's guilty findings to be justified. It also reversed the lower court's acquittal on a charge of violating the law regulating the concealment of criminal proceeds and found Kang guilty. The core of that allegation is that Kang asked Rep. Kim, through a broker identified only by the surname Yang, to lobby for approval of the new drug's clinical trials, and paid 600 million won to Yang's side in return.
"It is clear that the defendant used Kim Seung-won to lobby the drug safety ministry for clinical trial approval," the appeals court said. "In return, 600 million won was paid to Yang, and in that process the payment took the form of a convertible bond purchase to make it appear that Yang had acquired the money legitimately." The court said the payment could not be viewed as consideration for a legitimate transaction and judged it to be payment for brokering and soliciting favors.
"As a university professor, the defendant possessed a high level of specialized knowledge," the court said in explaining the sentence. "A high degree of care was required in applying that knowledge, but the defendant submitted false data to win swift approval for clinical trials, conduct that is highly blameworthy."
