Ahn Se-young was right...Government Calls for Dismissal of Badminton President

■ Proceedings:
■ Appearance: Attorney Seo Jeong-bin

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN Newswide] when quoting.

[Anchor]
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, which began an audit of the Badminton Association after Ahn Se-young's revelation, asked the police to investigate Kim Taek-kyu, president of the association, on charges of embezzlement and breach of trust. On the other hand, Park Hak-sun, a suspect in the mother-daughter murder case, was sentenced to life imprisonment. Let's take a look at the major incident that took place for a week with lawyer Seo Jung-bin. Please come in. The final audit results of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism came out. First of all, the so-called 'payback suspicion' turned out to be true. Can you explain this part first?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The Badminton Association has received a substantial amount of subsidies from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and for youth club leagues. However, in 2023, it turned out that they signed a product contract worth about 880 million won with a sponsor in relation to the two leagues and received 150 million won worth of goods separately from the contract, that is, a so-called payback contract. Similarly, there have been allegations that they received the same kind of payback in 2024, and this was also judged to be true after the investigation. When I investigated how they distributed the items that received the payback like this, I found out that the executive who pushed for the contract was in particular. It was confirmed that an overwhelming amount of supplies were distributed to the Badminton Association in the province to which the executive belongs compared to other regions.

Under the Subsidy Management Act, subsidies are prohibited when used for any purpose other than they are, or if they are profitable, unlike existing conditions or business plans, they are prohibited if they are spent on a party not related to the matter without approval. So, because of these problems, I decided that it was a violation of the subsidy law.

[Anchor]
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism said it would take back the subsidy, but it was nearly 9 billion won.

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism's position is to recover subsidies and impose sanctions. Since this is a mandatory regulation, it is said that we will thoroughly judge and recover it in the future. And the scale is known to be about 8.9 billion won. Therefore, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism requested the association to submit its opinion and even asked the Korean Sports Association, which is legally responsible for the return, to perform such responsible tasks in the future. In fact, in the end, the Badminton Association will have to pay for this return, but until last year, it was about half of the total business profit, so it is a little questionable whether it can be paid, and the amount is so large that legal disputes are expected when there is a return disposition later.

[Anchor]
Then what happens next if we can't get it all back?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, the Korean Sports Association has to bear the burden first, and then the Korean Sports Association has to bear the amount of the return money, but if you don't receive the return money properly, you can eventually proceed to execution through court litigation.

[Anchor]
With the situation like this, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism should dismiss Chairman Kim Taek-kyu. And the secretary general should also impose heavy penalties. I made a request like this, but I heard that the Korean Sports Council has the right to punish me.

[Seo Jeongbin]
First of all, the Badminton Association can punish you on its own. The association can decide on dismissal or disciplinary action against executives through a resolution at the general meeting, which is why the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is insisting that the Badminton Association take legitimate measures first. Furthermore, there is something that the Korean Sports Council can do. According to the internal regulations of the Sports Fair Commission, the sports committee can determine the level of disciplinary suspects and demand the disciplinary action at the stage. However, if this requirement is not met within three months, the Korean Sports Council will eventually be able to take disciplinary action directly. However, given that it is difficult to find such a case in practice, there is a question as to whether the regulation will work.

[Anchor]
However, they even warned that the Badminton Korea Association could be designated as a management organization if they don't receive dismissal and disciplinary action requests. What changes this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
This is in the articles of association of the Korean Sports Council. The Korea Sports Council may designate a member organization as a management organization through a resolution of the board of directors if it is deemed difficult to operate the organization normally due to various disputes or other reasons. If designated as a management organization, the organization will not be able to claim rights and obligations to the Korean Sports Council, and the organization's work will be managed and implemented by the Korean Sports Council. In addition, executives and officials are also deprived of their job authority, which can result in virtually the same result as dismissal.

[Anchor]
If this happens, there will inevitably be a conflict between the government and the Korean Sports Council. How do you see it?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. First of all, the Korean Sports Association and the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism have problems in considerable areas as a result of the investigation. In particular, regarding breach of trust, embezzlement, and payback, he showed a fairly strong attitude that he would ask the police to investigate such matters, and the investigation is quite long and detailed. The Badminton Association has not yet given a clear explanation about the payback, but the chairman has not been able to properly respond to the investigation because he has been treated unfairly as if he were a sinner in the investigation and interview process, and despite the fact that it is only a suspicion, it is unfair to demand such disciplinary action or dismissal before the investigation and such matters proceed further.

[Anchor]
However, if a police investigation is conducted, this part will be revealed, and I wonder if it will be possible to prove the charges. And what would be the level of punishment if proven?

[Jeongbin Seo]
According to the survey so far, the interim results were announced once in September and the final results were recently announced. In fact, these allegations and problems were investigated in considerable detail. And given that the amount and the circumstances afterwards are very specific and detailed, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism seems to have received a lot of necessary data, evidence, or statements of witnesses, and if so, I think this part is at a level that can prove considerable in considering embezzlement or breach of trust when it is transferred to the police. If this problem eventually leads to malpractice or embezzlement, in this case, you can face up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won. However, it seems a little difficult to predict the specific level of punishment because the Badminton Association has not yet made a clear stance, and for example, it was paid through a payback contract, but it was dropped off to the affiliated association.

[Anchor]
In addition to these charges, there was also a problem of verbal abuse and abusive language against the association's employees. What could be the punishment for this part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Of course, the parties can sue it for insults or things like that, but it does not appear to be such a situation yet. If these problems are true, they may correspond to workplace harassment stipulated by the Labor Standards Act. Workplace bullying refers to cases in which workers suffer physical and mental pain from employers due to superiority in their status and relationships. Of course, this includes verbal abuse and abusive language, and if proven, a fine of up to 10 million won can be imposed.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, Chairman Kim Taek-kyu is now preparing to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. Will the complaint be helpful?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, the explanation is not made with clear evidence, so for example, the investigation process was too unfair to himself. Or, it is only in accordance with the sports community's regulations and has implemented all approved projects, but it is unfair to raise such issues only with suspicions, so it is still difficult to predict how effective it will be when it is actually raised with the Human Rights Commission or the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission.

[Anchor]
Let's move on to the next case. It was the murder of a mother and daughter at an officetel in Gangnam in May. The first trial was sentenced by the suspect, Park Hak-seon. I killed two people. But now the court has sentenced him to life imprisonment. What is the reason for the court's judgment?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, there are two victims now. And that the two were mother and daughter. And the reason for this murder was to commit it out of spite for breaking up. When these things are put together, it is a crime that is very likely to be criticized, and life imprisonment itself is by no means a light sentence compared to other cases. However, from the perspective of the bereaved families and the people, it is possible to think that if this is the case, it should be sentenced to death. According to the reason for the sentencing in the court, he judged that the crime was too persistent and brutal as a sentence against him.

Therefore, it is highly likely to be criticized for killing two people in order to prevent them from reporting crimes out of spite over the demand for liquidation of the relationship. In addition, it is not possible to confirm whether there is an attitude of seriously reflecting on this crime. For this reason, the sentence was sentenced to life imprisonment on the grounds that the sentence was permanently deprived of freedom from society rather than the death penalty because such special circumstances were not clearly revealed to be justified.

[Anchor]
But when it comes to life imprisonment, isn't it subject to parole after 20 years? I think the bereaved families can also protest about this.

[Jeongbin Seo]
Under the criminal law, such life sentences can be subject to parole after 20 years through parole screening. Of course, I don't think parole will be allowed even 20 years later for serious and brutal cases at this level, but of course, I can't completely rule out the possibility from the perspective of the bereaved families, so I fully understand these criticisms and concerns. In fact, whenever these incidents occur, a new regulation should be established that makes parole absolutely impossible for prisoners of arms. These stories and these discussions are being repeated a lot. Likewise, in this case, a little more discourse is needed in that this is an event that can be repeated.

[Anchor]
The bereaved families just said that if they appeal, they want the death penalty to come out. If you appeal, how do you see it?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, I don't think it's going to be easy to sentence the death penalty. If you compare the cases of other death sentences, the number of victims is often much higher, or the cases where the damage is large in combination with violent crimes lead to death sentences. In fact, in this case, compared to those cases, I think it is a little difficult to sentence the death penalty. However, considering that the victims are in a mother-daughter relationship, so it is a very brutal murder, I think the appeals court will eventually consider whether or not to be sentenced to death.

[Anchor]
Let's look at the last case. In April, two women were almost killed in a row in Jeonju, Jeollabuk-do, due to assault without asking. The suspect has been sentenced to a heavy sentence, so can you summarize the case first?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The incident happened around April around 3 a.m. near a university town in Jeollabuk-do. The perpetrator first followed victim A and hit him on the head, and when the victim resisted fiercely, he fled to another place. However, only about 30 minutes later, he assaulted another victim, B, dragged her to the parking lot, performed similar sexual activities, and left the victim there and fled. Victim B was left in the cold weather for eight hours at the time and was eventually taken to the hospital after receiving a report from a witness, and managed to avoid death. The perpetrator was arrested and arrested that afternoon. Sentenced on October 30. And he was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

[Anchor]
The suspect claims that there was no intention of murder. The court seems to have judged differently. There is a clear intention to kill, and I look at it like this.

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. From the beginning to the trial, the perpetrator has continued to deny his intention that he was willing to rape B, especially the victim B, who was about to die, but did not intend to kill him. However, the court rejected this argument. Considering the reason, at that time, the victim was left on the side of the asphalt road in cold weather at dawn. And considering that he even filmed the victim after the crime, he judged that the murder was intentional that the victim could die and it still didn't matter.

[Anchor]
In my opinion, 30 years in prison doesn't mean the victim dies anyway, right? But being sentenced to 30 years seems like a very heavy punishment, what was the background?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, the crime itself was a very serious crime, and because it was a case that almost killed the victim, it was highly likely to be sentenced to severe punishment compared to other cases. However, as you said, there was no death result in this case, so 30 years is definitely a medium-sized part. It is confirmed that the perpetrator had a criminal history of being sentenced to probation and imprisonment for similar cases not only in this case but also before that. So, in the past, he was sentenced to prison for committing such serious crimes as rape and robbery since he was a teenager, but it seems that he committed such violent crimes again a few years after he was released from prison, which is why he was sentenced to such a heavy sentence.

[Anchor]
30 years in prison may be considered a heavy sentence, but the prosecution asked for life imprisonment anyway. If the prosecution enters the appeals court, what will be considered an issue?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, as the perpetrator continued to claim in the first trial, it seems that there will be a dispute as to whether or not the murder was intentional. In any case, the prosecution will attack this point again because it can be argued that it left the victim behind and did not expect him to die.

On the other hand, the sentence of 30 years in prison is not serious for committing such a brutal crime that could have led to murder, including the purpose of sexual assault on two victims on the same day. Rather, the prosecution is likely to attack the prosecution to sentence him to life imprisonment, so the issue related to the sentencing is also expected to be treated as important.

[Anchor]
I talked with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin about the Badminton Association, the news of major incidents, and the news of the accident. Thank you.