Lee Gyu-won challenges Supreme Court ruling on Kim Hak-ui case report with constitutional complaint

Lee Gyu-won, a former deputy prosecutor, has lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, challenging the Supreme Court's final ruling that upheld his conviction. The Supreme Court had previously confirmed a suspended sentence of 2 million won for Lee.

Lee was found guilty of fabricating an interview report while working with the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's fact-finding team on alleged sex offenses involving former Vice Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui. Specifically, he is accused of creating a false report of an interview with construction businessman Yoon Joong-cheon, including a statement that Yoon had mentioned former President Yoon Suk-yeol visiting a villa, a claim the prosecution disputes.

Lee's legal troubles began with a first trial that resulted in a suspended sentence of 500,000 won. An appellate court increased this to a 2 million won suspended sentence, adding charges of violating personal information protection laws. The Supreme Court finalized this decision in April, dismissing Lee's appeal.

Following the ruling, Lee expressed his intent to file the constitutional complaint, citing significant constitutional issues related to the legal nature of interview reports, the intent behind violating personal information protection laws, and the limits of expanding arrest warrant requirements. He argued that the Supreme Court failed to provide adequate constitutional clarification on these matters.

This case is part of a larger legal saga. Lee was previously acquitted in June of charges related to the illegal exit ban of former Vice Minister Kim. Separately, lawmaker Cha Gyu-geun, who was acquitted alongside Lee, has filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission against prosecutors involved in his investigation. Meanwhile, Lee, who engaged in political activities while a prosecutor, was dismissed in November 2024 and lost an administrative lawsuit challenging the dismissal.

“

There were significant constitutional issues included in the grounds for appeal related to the legal nature of the interview report, the purpose and intent of the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, and the limits of the expansion of arrest criteria.