South Korea Prosecutors Indict Ex-President Moon Jae-in for Bribery
South Korean President Moon Jae-in speaks during a ceremony of the 103rd anniversary of the March 1st Independence Movement Day in Seoul, South Korea, March 1, 2022.
SEOUL, April 24 (Reuters) – South Korean prosecutors have indicted former president Moon Jae-in for alleged bribery, a prosecution office spokesperson said on Thursday, in a case related to the appointment of his former son-in-law at a Thai airline.
Moon, 72, was indicted for bribery, while former lawmaker Lee Sang-jik was indicted for bribery and breach of trust, Jeonju District Prosecutors' Office said in a statement.
Prosecutors had been investigating whether Lee's appointment as the head of the SMEs and Startups Agency was in exchange for Moon's former son-in-law getting a job and receiving a salary plus living expenses at the Thai-based corporation that Lee controlled in 2018-2020, the statement said.
The prosecution alleges that the money Moon's son-in-law received as an executive director totalling 5.95 million baht ($177,506), or 218 million won, was irregular and constituted a bribe to the then-president.
Moon, Lee and their legal representatives could not immediately be reached for comment.
The liberal-leaning Moon, a lawyer and a civil rights activist, was president between 2017 and 2022.
He was replaced by the conservative Yoon Suk Yeol as president. Yoon was removed from office this month after being impeached over his short-lived imposition of martial law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
13 minutes ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung's Tumultuous Life Marked by Poverty and Peril
Born into a poor family and having worked as a laborer while young, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung is known for having overcome numerous adversities in his life. When he won the presidential election in June, South Korean media outlets all described him as having led a life of dramatic changes. The have-not A South Korean metaphor refers to a person born into a wealthy family as being a 'gold spoon' and a person born into a poor family as being a 'dirt spoon.' In November 2021, Lee reflected on his childhood on social media, saying, 'I wasn't even born as a dirt spoon.' He also said, 'I know how harsh the world is for the have-nots.' Lee was the seventh of nine children in a farming family in Andong City in the eastern province of Gyeongsangbuk. His birth was not registered, so his exact date of birth is unknown. His official birthday, Dec. 22, 1964, was chosen by his mother based on advice from a fortune teller, although he was actually born in October 1963. Due to his father's gambling addiction, the family lost their farmland and moved to Seongnam City near Seoul after Lee graduated from elementary school. Lee did not attend middle school but worked in a factory making baseball gloves for over 12 hours a day. At age 12, he was injured in an accident when his left wrist was caught in a press machine, leaving him with a deformed arm. Election law allegations Lee passed the High School Equivalency Examination and enrolled in Chung-Ang University's law school in Seoul in 1982. Determined to support the democracy movement as a lawyer, he opened a law office in Seongnam in his mid-20s. He was elected Seongnam mayor in 2010 and gained attention for populist policies such as providing payouts to young people. His political life was on the brink during his tenure as Gyeonggi province governor from 2018. Lee was convicted of violating the public official election law by allegedly making a false statement during a gubernatorial debate. Had the sentence been finalized, his election would have been invalidated, but the Supreme Court ultimately acquitted him and remanded the case to the high court, a decision described as a 'miracle' by South Korean media. At the time of the 2022 presidential election, Lee, a member of the left-leaning Democratic Party, ran a fierce campaign in the party's primary against the mainstream faction led by then incumbent President Moon Jae-in, who was not a candidate. In the process, Lee was accused of wrongdoing related to a real estate development project. Lee was ultimately named the party's official candidate but could not dispel the image of fraud. This appeared to be a factor in his narrow loss to Yoon Suk Yeol in the presidential election — by just 0.73 percentage points. Investigations into Lee progressed under the Yoon administration. Just before the 2025 presidential election, the Supreme Court overturned a high court ruling that had acquitted Lee of another election law violation. Lee would have been barred from running in the presidential election if he had received a penalty exceeding 1 million won. Lee has denied wrongdoing, calling it 'political persecution' by conservatives. Assassination attempt Lee even survived a knife attack. In January 2024, ahead of the general election, he was stabbed in the neck by a man from the crowd during a visit to the southern city of Busan, leaving him hospitalized for eight days. According to police, the offender said he was trying to 'prevent Lee from becoming president.' Lee said after the incident, 'They couldn't kill me with a law or a pen, so they tried to kill me with a knife, but I will never die.' According to Yonhap News, during the first U.S.-South Korean leaders' phone conversation in June, Lee shared his experience of surviving an assassination attempt with U.S. President Donald Trump, who was also attacked during a presidential campaign rally last year.
Nikkei Asia
13 minutes ago
- Nikkei Asia
Trump's pandering to Putin should alarm East Asian allies
U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on Aug. 15. © Reuters James D.J. Brown is a professor of political science at Temple University, Japan Campus.
The Diplomat
4 hours ago
- The Diplomat
How a Thai Influencer is Profiting From the Border Conflict With Thailand
In an age in which social media has become a primary political battleground, a disturbing phenomenon has taken root: the transformation of a political conflict into a commodity. The case of Thai social media influencer Praiwan Wannabut, who has 4.4 million followers on Facebook, serves as a particularly salient and deeply troubling example of this trend. Recent Facebook posts include one on July 24, the day that fighting broke out between Thai and Cambodian troops along the border, in which he posted a photo of a Swedish Gripen jet fighter, with the caption, 'Until Cambodia is defeated and begs to return to negotiation table.' Another post from that day featured a similar photo with the caption, 'Can we target 6 bombs on Hun Sen's house?', referring to Cambodia's former prime minister, who has played a prominent role in the recent border dispute. The following day, he posted, 'our canons already killed more than 100 Khmer soldiers.' These recent posts reveal a cynical exploitation of genuine geopolitical tension for personal gain. This phenomenon raises serious questions about the nature of modern nationalism and the ethical decay that occurs when engagement metrics take precedence over human lives. This issue is particularly pressing given Praiwan's religious and academic background. Prior to becoming an internet personality, he served for 18 years as a monk, rising to become a celebrated scholar who completed the highest level of Pali studies in Thailand and earned a Master's degree in both Buddhist studies and law. At one point, he enrolled in a doctorate program in Peace Studies. Ironically, this academic journey, which should have cultivated a deep understanding of non-violence, conflict resolution, and the historical roots of discord, stands in stark contrast to his actions. The current tension between Thailand and Cambodia is rooted in a history of shifting borders, competing national narratives, and judicial rulings that both sides interpret to their advantage. A true scholar of peace would understand these complexities and use their platform to advocate for diplomacy and reconciliation rather than to amplify calls for confrontation. Praiwan is sadly not an isolated case. He is but one figure in a broader landscape where influencers, driven by hidden agendas, have turned the ongoing border dispute into a digital battleground. On both sides of the border, social media personalities and content creators have seized on the heightened tensions. Reports have documented how Thai celebrities and online personalities have been pressured to choose between patriotism and neutrality, with some using nationalist rhetoric to gain followers, while others have been criticized for advocating for peace. Concurrently, Cambodian influencers have been accused of spreading fabricated videos and stories aimed at stoking public outrage against Thailand. The monetization of conflict is not the work of a single individual, but a systemic problem where a network of influencers on both sides profits from and perpetuates a cycle of hostility, all under the guise of patriotic duty. Instead of using his platform to question the military's role or to advocate for diplomatic solutions, Praiwan chose to align himself with the nationalist narrative, becoming an echo chamber for pro-military sentiment. This shift was a calculated choice to remain within the safe confines of mainstream patriotic discourse, thereby preserving his influence and avoiding the risks that a true critical stance would entail. His newfound militaristic fervor is a testament to the idea that, for some influencers, social justice is a brand to be worn, but which is immediately jettisoned the moment it challenges the fundamental pillars of state power. The most insidious aspect of this phenomenon is its economic engine. Social media platforms are driven by algorithms that are hard-wired to promote content that elicits strong emotional reactions. Hate, anger, and national pride are among the most potent of these emotions, guaranteeing high engagement rates through likes, shares, and comments. This, in turn, leads to increased ad revenue. Praiwan's public bragging about his Facebook income is a chilling demonstration of how social media has created a direct, financial incentive to incite hatred. For the influencer, war and conflict, far from being matters of human suffering and death, serve as content generators. This system creates a self-perpetuating cycle where the more hateful the content, the more profitable it becomes, all while dehumanizing the 'other' and normalizing the idea of violence as a solution. This brand of nationalism, fueled by social media, is particularly dangerous because it is inorganic. It is a manufactured sentiment, a product sold to the public that benefits only a few. This commercialization of patriotism warps the very meaning of national identity, transforming it from a source of shared heritage and pride into a tool for profit. The dangers of this trend are far-reaching. It corrupts public discourse by replacing thoughtful analysis with emotional rhetoric. It makes a mockery of education and intellectualism by showing that even the most rigorous academic training is no match for the lure of social media profit. Most critically, it erodes the very foundations of democracy and international relations by turning citizens into passive consumers of a conflict they are actively encouraged to participate in from behind a screen. To combat this, we need a multi-pronged approach. First, there must be a greater push for media literacy education, teaching the public to be skeptical of emotionally charged content and to recognize the difference between genuine information and performative outrage. Second, social media platforms must be held accountable for the content they promote. They need to reform their algorithms to de-prioritize hate and misinformation and be transparent about their monetization policies. Finally, influencers themselves must be called to a higher ethical standard. As public figures with immense reach, they have a responsibility to use their platforms to build bridges, not to burn them down for a paycheck. The ultimate goal is to create a digital landscape where peace and cooperation are more profitable than conflict and hate, ensuring that the 'angels of history' are not silenced by the deafening clang of the cash register.
