Kim Keon Hee’s sentence should not be misread as a free pass

Home > Opinion > Editorials

Kim Keon Hee’s sentence should not be misread as a free pass

Published: 29 Jan. 2026, 00:00

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

People watch a live broadcast of the verdict for former first lady Kim Keon Hee at Seoul Station on the afternoon of Jan. 28. [NEWS1]

With former first lady Kim Keon Hee sentenced to one year and eight months in prison, an unprecedented situation has unfolded in which a former president and his spouse have both been sentenced to time behind bars. The ruling by the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 27, led by Presiding Judge Woo In-sung, was stern in tone, rebuking Kim for having “abused her status as first lady as a means of personal gain.” The court also found, based on multiple pieces of evidence, that Kim did in fact receive a Graff necklace she had consistently denied accepting. While the prison sentence was imposed on Kim, the sense of shame belongs to the nation as a whole. This painful episode should never be repeated in Korea’s constitutional history.

One aspect of the ruling that drew particular attention was the wide gap between the sentence sought by prosecutors, 15 years, and the sentence imposed, one year and eight months. The difference stemmed from the fact that many of the charges listed in the indictment were dismissed. Some have interpreted the verdict as the court correcting what they see as an overzealous special prosecution that inflated minor suspicions. A closer reading of the judgment, however, shows that Kim can hardly claim she was wronged.

In the Deutsch Motors stock manipulation case, the court acquitted Kim, but did so on the grounds that she could not be regarded as a co-perpetrator as charged by the special prosecutors. The ruling leaves open the possibility that the outcome could have been different had she been indicted as an accomplice who aided the scheme. That issue may be revisited on appeal through amendments to the indictment. The court also ruled that some acts related to the stock manipulation allegations exceeded the statute of limitations, a conclusion that reflects delayed and overly lenient investigations into Kim. Prosecutors hesitated in the face of power, while those in power exerted visible and invisible pressure on the prosecution. Acquittals on some influence peddling charges likewise do not amount to a blanket exoneration of Kim’s conduct, but rather reflect the court’s strict application of evidentiary standards and legal principles. Seen in this light, it would be misguided to interpret the reduced sentence simply as vindication.

A verdict reached through a rigorous evaluation of evidence and careful application of the law deserves respect. It is therefore deeply regrettable that the ruling party has criticized the court, expressing dissatisfaction with what it views as a lenient sentence. This reaction stands in sharp contrast to its response in the earlier case involving former President Yoon Suk Yeol, where a sentence exceeded the prosecution’s request. Attacking the judiciary because a ruling is unwelcome and invoking judicial reform as justification goes beyond selective interpretation and risks exerting improper pressure on the courts.

Even if there are objections to the ruling, the appropriate course is to await appellate proceedings with restraint. Kim still faces additional trials, including allegations of influence peddling and cases linked to the Unification Church. The courts must remain unswayed by political winds and deliver judgments based solely on evidence and legal reasoning.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.