Ex-unification minister gets suspended sentence in 'blacklist' case

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a suspended prison sentence for former Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon, who was indicted in connection with the so-called "blacklist case" — allegations that the Moon Jae-in administration pressured public institution heads appointed by previous governments to resign.

The Supreme Court's First Division, presided over by Justice Shin Suk-hee, confirmed the appeals court ruling sentencing Cho to six months in prison, suspended for one year, on charges of abuse of authority obstructing the exercise of rights.

The court said the lower court had committed no error — neither by failing to conduct the necessary deliberations, violating the rules of logic and experience, or exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, nor by misapplying the legal principles governing abuse of authority or causation.

According to court records, Cho was accused of pressuring Son Gwang-ju, then chairman of the Korea Hana Foundation, to step down in July 2017, with about a year remaining in his term. Prosecutors determined that Cho had conveyed the resignation demand to Son through former Vice Unification Minister Cheon Hae-sung and a director-level official in the relevant department, and indicted Cho in January 2023.

The trial court acquitted Cho in January last year, finding it unclear whether he had decided to replace the foundation's chairman and, in order to carry that out, directed officials to obtain Son's letter of resignation.

The appeals court reversed that acquittal in November last year, sentencing Cho to six months in prison, suspended for one year. The appeals panel said the vice minister and director who met with Son at Cho's direction appeared to have understood themselves as demanding Son's resignation, even if they did not use the word "resignation" directly.

The appeals court also said that while the minister had the authority to dismiss the foundation's chairman upon a board recommendation, and could in effect influence the board through supervisory powers and appointment rights, he had no legal authority to dismiss the chairman or cut short the chairman's term unilaterally. It said the trial court had erred in law by ruling that even if Cho had in fact demanded the resignation, it amounted only to an abuse of his position rather than an abuse of his official authority.