Kim Sung-tae, former chairman of Ssangbangwool, arrives at the Seoul High Prosecutors&#39; Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the morning of January 8 to be questioned regarding allegations of coercion to elicit a confession that arose during the investigation into Ssangbangwool&#39;s remittances to North Korea 2026.1.8 / News1

It has been revealed that prosecutors have requested a change in the indictment for the appeal trial of former Ssangbangwool Group Chairman Kim Sung-tae, who is currently facing charges of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act in connection with the 8 million USD North Korea remittance case. The prosecutors have asked the court to also consider third-party bribery charges.

This move comes after the first trial dismissed the third-party bribery charges, considering them to be in ideal concurrence with the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act violation, as they shared the same basic facts. While appealing the decision, prosecutors have preemptively requested the addition of criminal facts to other cases to prepare for the possibility of a similar ruling.

According to legal sources on April 5, the Suwon High Prosecutors' Office filed for a change in the indictment with the appeals court handling Kim's Foreign Exchange Transactions Act violation case on the 19th of last month.

It has been confirmed that prosecutors added content related to third-party bribery charges to the indictment, which originally dealt with Kim's alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, on the premise of ideal concurrence.

Prior to this, on March 9, prosecutors also requested the consolidation of the separately indicted third-party bribery case with the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act violation case. The third-party bribery case is currently under appeal by prosecutors following the first trial court's decision to dismiss the indictment in February.

The first trial court dismissed the indictment because it determined that the prosecution had double indicted (charging twice for a single act) Kim for the third-party bribery charges.

At the time, the first trial court stated that this case involved the defendant's alleged bribery, but the facts of the indictment, including the time, place, and recipient of the payment, were all identical to those in the related case (Kim's alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act). Therefore, they dismissed the indictment, citing ideal concurrence. Ideal concurrence refers to a situation where a single act simultaneously constitutes multiple crimes, while real concurrence refers to cases where separate acts each constitute individual crimes.

Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that when an indictment is filed again for a case that has already been indicted, the court must dismiss the indictment.

In contrast, while prosecutors view the third-party bribery charges as being in real concurrence, they have decided to pursue a two-track approach to maintain the indictment, believing it necessary to have these charges definitively judged.

If prosecutors maintain their stance on real concurrence in the appeals trial for the third-party bribery charges, and the appeals court also dismisses the indictment as the first trial did, they would lose the opportunity to have this aspect judged by the court.

A view of the Supreme Prosecutors&#39; Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul 2026.3.24 / News1

Attention is now focused on how the court will decide regarding the permission for the indictment change and the consolidation of cases.

Kim was first indicted and detained in 2023 on charges of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act for allegedly paying 5 million USD to North Korea on behalf of Gyeonggi Province for a smart farm support project and 3 million USD for then-Governor Lee Jae Myung's visit to North Korea in 2019. In July 2024, the first trial sentenced him to 2 years and 6 months in prison for violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and 1 year of imprisonment suspended for 2 years for violating the Political Funds Act.

The additional third-party bribery charges against Kim, filed by prosecutors, stem from their view that Kim's remittance to North Korea was essentially providing 8 million USD in bribes for the political benefit of President Lee. In previous trials, prosecutors argued that while Kim's act of paying money to North Korea may overlap with the previously indicted Foreign Exchange Transactions Act violation, the structure of the bribery offense is different and independent.

If a judgment is made on Kim's third-party bribery charges, it could potentially influence the evaluation of related cases to some extent. There is also speculation that it might indirectly affect the allegations of third-party bribery against President Lee regarding the North Korea remittance.

President Lee's trial is currently suspended temporarily. The President cannot be subject to criminal prosecution during his term of office unless he has committed the crimes of insurrection or foreign aggression.

President Lee was indicted on charges of conspiring with former Gyeonggi Province Vice Governor for Peace Lee Hwa-young to have Kim pay 5 million USD from January to April 2019 on behalf of Gyeonggi Province for the smart farm support project promised to North Korea. He is also charged with having Kim pay 3 million USD from July 2019 to January 2020 for the governor's visit to North Korea as requested by the North Korean side.

It has been revealed that prosecutors have requested a change in the indictment for the ap …

Kim Sung-tae's 8 Million USD North Korea Remittance Case: What’s Next for the Former Chairman?