Kim Nam-guk, former lawmaker, found ”not guilty” of concealing 10 billion won worth of coins... Court: ”At that time, virtual currency was not subject to reporting”

Kim Nam-guk, a former lawmaker from the Democratic Party of Korea who was on trial for filing false National Assembly asset reports to conceal his huge cryptocurrency holdings, was found not guilty in the first trial, according to News 1.
At 2 p.m. on the 10th, the Seoul Southern District Court ruled that the former lawmaker, who is accused of fraudulent obstruction of justice, "falls under the category of a case in which there is no criminal evidence."
The former lawmaker transferred part of his coin deposit to a bank account twice in 2021 and 2022 to conceal the fact that he made huge profits from coin investments at the time of his National Assembly asset declaration.
He is accused of combining the total assets and converting the remaining deposits into coins, thereby obstructing the National Assembly's Public Officials Ethics Committee's review of his asset movements.
The prosecution said that the former lawmaker had deposited about 9.9 billion won (about 1 billion yen) in coins during his 2021 asset declaration.
) and reported his total assets as just over 1.2 billion won (US$126 million), and is believed to have concealed approximately 990 million won (US$100 million) in 2022 using the same method.
At the closing hearing in December last year, the prosecution sought a six-month prison sentence. The court said, "At the time the charges were filed, virtual currencies were not subject to the (Diet Members' Property Declaration Registration) and therefore there was no obligation to register them.
He explained the reason for the sentence, saying, "It is difficult to see that fraudulent means were used in some areas." He also said, "There are some areas where the evidence (related to registered assets) is insufficient or inaccurate."
However, even if the Ethics Committee was unable to accurately determine the actual total assets of the person obligated to register due to insufficient or inaccurate evidence, the Ethics Committee's review authority was not obstructed by fraudulent means.
"In light of the circumstances that can be seen from the evidence I have previously investigated, it is not enough to say that he committed fraudulent obstruction of public duties," he continued.
There is no other evidence sufficient to support this."