Kim Ki-hyun, a member of the People Power Party, and his wife are being summoned for a second time by special prosecutor Min Jung-ki on the 27th. [Photo = Yonhap News]

The focus of the controversy surrounding the luxury gift incident involving the couple of People Power Party lawmaker Kim Ki-hyun is shifting to the special prosecutor's investigative methods. This is because Kim Ki-hyun and his spouse have been indicted for violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act for allegedly giving an expensive luxury clutch bag to the President's spouse.

Even if found guilty in this case, the penalty would be a fine, not criminal punishment. Therefore, controversy continues regarding the proportionality of the special prosecutor's investigative and indictment approach, which involved indicting both the husband and wife.

The special prosecutor's office today indicted Kim Ki-hyun and his wife without detention on charges of violating Article 8 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

According to the special prosecutor's office, Kim and his wife are accused of providing First Lady Kim Keon-hee with a Roger Vivier clutch bag valued at approximately 2.67 million won. The special prosecutor's office stated that the luxury bag was delivered "immediately after the People Power Party's national convention."

However, the specific date of delivery was not disclosed in the indictment summary. Bribery charges were not applied in this case.

The fact that the delivery time was only described as "immediately after the national convention" is also pointed out as a contentious issue.

While the timing of the act is a crucial factor in determining the relevance to official duties, the term "immediately after" makes it difficult to clearly ascertain the temporal proximity or causal relationship.

In particular, due to the nature of gift-giving incidents, the time of purchase and the actual delivery time may not coincide, and it is difficult to pinpoint the delivery date solely based on purchase records. It is explained that in cases without specific official records, it is difficult to immediately conclude that a statement of not remembering the exact date is an evasion.

The punishment structure is also at the center of the controversy.

This case falls under Article 8, Paragraph 5 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, making it subject to a fine, not criminal punishment, under Article 23 of the same act. Both Kim Ki-hyun and his spouse are considered "providers" in this case, and even if relevance to official duties is acknowledged, a fine is the extent of the penalty. While fines can be imposed up to five times the amount provided, imprisonment or fines are not applicable.

For this reason, the special prosecutor's office indicting a case subject to a fine in the form of a criminal indictment, and moreover, indicting both husband and wife together, is leading to controversy over proportionality.

Kim Ki-hyun's spouse is not a public official and, even if recognized as a provider, would only be subject to a fine. Given that cases subject to fines are often resolved through administrative procedures, some legal professionals argue that it was excessive for the special prosecutor's office to summon and investigate the spouse multiple times before indicting them together with Kim.

The special prosecutor's office's decision not to apply bribery charges also fuels this controversy.

Bribery charges require proof of a quid pro quo with official duties. The special prosecutor's exclusion of this suggests a judgment that there were limitations in proving the intent or exchange necessary for criminal liability.

Consequently, some view this indictment as a choice prioritizing symbolic effect over the practical utility of legal sanctions.

Kim Ki-hyun stated, "While I did provide a luxury item, it was a gift of courtesy in a private personal relationship, and there was no solicitation or exchange of any kind," adding, "The burden of proof for relevance to official duties rests with the special prosecutor."

This indictment leaves open questions about whether it was appropriate for the special prosecutor to indict the couple together for a case subject to a fine, and whether the indictment, which only specified the delivery as "immediately after the national convention" – a key factor in determining relevance to official duties – was justifiable.

The controversy surrounding the level of punishment, the intensity of the investigation, and the completeness of the indictment is expected to continue for some time.

By Kim Young