[Edaily Reporter BAEK JU-A ] On the 15th, representatives of SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won announced that they had filed an appeal against the prosecution’s decision not to indict attorney Lee Sang-won—who represents Noh So-young, director of Art Center Nabi—for making remarks implying that “over 100 billion won was spent on Kim Hee-young.”

In a statement released that day, Chairman Choi’s legal representative argued, “The prosecution’s decision not to indict was based on a lack of evidence proving awareness of the false facts,” adding, “Nowhere in the decision is there a finding that the figures disseminated were confirmed to be true.” They explained that since the decision not to indict is being interpreted as an acknowledgment of the truthfulness of Attorney Lee’s remarks, they are seeking a reconsideration of the case.

Previously, on the 9th, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office decided not to indict Attorney Lee on charges of defamation by spreading false information, citing insufficient evidence. In November 2023, following the pretrial hearing for the damages lawsuit filed by Director Noh against former T&C Foundation Chairwoman Kim Hee-young, Attorney Lee made remarks suggesting that the amount Chairman Choi had spent on former Chairwoman Kim was highly likely to exceed 100 billion won.

Chairman Choi’s side argued that Attorney Lee had aggregated expenditures with different purposes, including expenses for Director Noh and her three children, contributions and donations for public interest, and assets held solely in Chairman Choi’s name, all of which he had included as expenditures related to former Chairwoman Kim.

According to Chairman Choi’s side, the amount he and former Chairman Kim used jointly for living expenses was approximately 2 billion won as of the time of the statement. Chairman Choi’s legal representative claimed to have provided a detailed explanation of the amount—verified through an investigation of financial transaction records—to the court handling the property division case, and asserted that Mrs. Noh and Attorney Lee were also aware of this.

Specifically, they pointed to a total of 20.4 billion won spent from a Kookmin Bank account opened while Chairman Choi was incarcerated. Chairman Choi’s side argued that “the account was opened for Mrs. Noh and that a significant portion of the expenditures were funds taken by Mrs. Noh,” claiming that expenditures unrelated to former Chairman Kim had been included in the total.

They also took issue with contributions and donations made to organizations such as the Children’s Foundation, the Community Chest of Korea, and the T&C Foundation. They maintain that characterizing funds used for public interest projects—including emergency relief, scholarships, education, and welfare—as gifts to specific individuals constitutes a distortion of the facts.

Regarding the house and artworks registered under Chairman Choi’s name, they explained that these are personal assets included in the property division proceedings. They further stated that while Director Noh’s side demands the division of these same assets as joint marital property in court, they claim in the media that they were gifted to former Chairman Kim, adding, “These two claims are incompatible.”

Chairman Choi’s side argued that Attorney Lee, as the representative in the property division lawsuit, could have verified the relevant facts but “inflated the figures to more than 50 times the actual amount to orchestrate a public relations campaign favorable to Director Noh and influence the ongoing trial.” They also claimed that he repeatedly appeared on television to spread false information and disclosed court documents and personal financial information that are prohibited from public release under the Family Court Act.

However, it is reported that during the decision not to indict, the prosecution considered expenditures related to former Chairman Kim to include a 13.3 billion won donation to the T&C Foundation, approximately 4.3 billion won transferred to former Chairman Kim and his family, and approximately 30 billion won in construction costs for the Hannam-dong residence. It is also reported that the prosecution took into account the fact that, in a separate defamation case involving a YouTuber, the court had acquitted the defendant, noting that there was room to view the relevant expenditures as ranging from 65 billion to 70 billion won or more.