Lee & Ko Secures Acquittal of Mirae Asset Affiliates in Criminal Appeal Concerning Alleged Undue Benefits to a Specially Related Party

Lee & Ko successfully secured a full acquittal at both the trial and appellate levels for Mirae Asset Global Investments Co., Ltd. and Mirae Asset Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Mirae Affiliates”) in a criminal case alleging violations of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”).

The prosecution alleged that the Mirae Affiliates unfairly allocated business to golf courses operated by an affiliate with a high ownership ratio held by a specially related party, thereby conferring undue benefits. The trial court rendered a full acquittal on January 16, 2025, and Lee & Ko prevailed again on appeal on October 24, 2025. The appellate ruling is particularly noteworthy given that related administrative litigation, after dismissal by the Seoul High Court, remains pending before the Supreme Court.

The principal issue in the criminal proceedings was whether the Mirae Affiliates possessed the requisite criminal intent to confer, or to tolerate the conferral of, undue benefits upon a specially related party through the use of group-owned golf courses.

Lee & Ko argued that establishing criminal intent with respect to abstract legal concepts under the MRFTA requires strict and careful proof. The firm emphasized that criminal liability should not be imposed where corporate group-level decisions reflect reasonable business judgment. Lee & Ko demonstrated that the use of group-owned golf courses formed part of a rational asset management strategy and that there was no intent or acceptance of conferring undue benefits.

Through meticulous review of documentary evidence and extensive witness examination, Lee & Ko successfully established the absence of criminal intent. The decision is particularly significant given the limited criminal precedent concerning the conferral of undue benefits to specially related parties. The appellate court clarified that criminal intent cannot be inferred solely from formal considerations, such as a high ownership ratio of a specially related party or the mere potential for indirect advantages in management succession, and underscored the need for caution in recognizing intent in the context of abstract statutory concepts under the MRFTA.