[Edaily Reporter Kim Hyun-ah ] Koo Hyun-mo, former CEO of KTCorporation, was acquitted in the first trial on charges of improperly interfering in the management of a subcontractor. The court ruled that while there were suspicions of management interference, it was difficult to substantiate the charges based solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecution.

With this ruling, attention is once again turning to allegations of external pressure surrounding the appointment of the CEO of KTCorporation(030200) during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, as well as the appropriateness of the prosecution’s investigation at that time. Given that former CEO Koo and former KTCorporation CEO Yoon Kyung-rim—both final candidates—testified that they were pressured to resign during the reappointment and CEO selection processes, controversy surrounding the connection between the investigation and the CEO replacement is expected to reignite.

However, this ruling does not directly address allegations of abuse of authority by the Yoon Suk-yeol administration or the prosecution. The court’s ruling pertains solely to former CEO Koo’s alleged violation of the Subcontracting Act.

Former CEO Koo was indicted in 2024 on charges of interfering in management by instructing KS Mate, a subcontractor of KTCorporation Telecop—a KTCorporation subsidiary—to appoint a former executive of a KTCorporation affiliate as its CEO in 2020.

On the 25th, Criminal Division 23 of the Seoul Central District Court acquitted former CEO Koo. The court ruled that while there was room to suspect that former CEO Koo had used his position within KTCorporation to interfere in the management of a subcontractor, the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to support this.

Shin Hyun-ok, a former KTCorporation vice president who was indicted alongside him, was also acquitted of charges of violating the Subcontracting Act. She was also found not guilty of charges related to the adjustment of work volumes for KTCorporation Telecop’s partner companies. However, she was found guilty of coercion for pressuring an employee by threatening personnel disadvantages to order the adjustment of work volumes and was sentenced to a fine of 5 million won.

The allegations of “steering business” surrounding former CEO Koo are a separate matter from the acquittal in this trial. Prosecutors investigated whether former CEO Koo was involved in KTCorporation’s past practice of steering facility management contracts to specific companies, as well as the possibility of slush fund creation, but concluded in May 2024 that there was insufficient evidence to press charges.

Allegations of

External Pressure Blocking Koo Hyun-mo’s Re-election… Appropriateness of Investigation Under Scrutiny

This ruling is drawing attention because it is intertwined with the process of former CEO Koo’s re-election.

During last year’s parliamentary audit by the National Assembly’s Science, Technology, Information, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee, former CEO Koo testified that while he was selected twice as the sole candidate in accordance with KTCorporation’s board procedures during his 2022 reappointment bid, he was told that the Office of the President was displeased. He also stated that a message demanding his resignation was conveyed through an acquaintance of Lee Kwan-seop, who was then Senior Secretary for Policy Planning at the Office of the President.

Yoon Kyung-rim, former KTCorporation President and a finalist for the CEO position, also testified that immediately after being selected as a finalist, he faced a complaint filed by a civic group and a subsequent prosecution investigation, and that he was pressured through intermediaries to “step down because the mood in Yongsan is not favorable.”

As the two stepped down in quick succession, suspicions arose that the Office of the President and the National Pension Service had intervened in the KTCorporation CEO selection process at the time. Furthermore, as investigations into former CEO Koo and former President Yoon coincided, controversy over “targeted investigations” also surfaced.

This acquittal in the first-instance trial has provided an opportunity to reexamine these past controversies. As the court acquitted the defendants of the charges brought by the prosecution on the grounds of insufficient evidence, debates surrounding the necessity and scope of the investigation at the time, as well as the appropriateness of the indictments, may intensify once again.

With this acquittal, it is increasingly likely that the KTCorporation CEO appointment process at the time, the appropriateness of the prosecution’s investigation, and even the controversy over “abuse of authority” in the exercise of prosecutorial power will resurface.