The prolonged investigation into the controversy over the appointment of Coach Hong Myung-bo, which has shaken Korean soccer for over two years, has concluded with mixed results.
At the heart of the dispute, former national soccer team coach Hong Myung-bo was cleared of charges. The police determined there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Hong had directly influenced the process of his appointment.
On the other hand, former KFA chairman Chung Mong-gyu, former technical director Lee Im-saeng, and former executive vice-president Kim Jeong-bae were handed over to the prosecution. The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency’s Financial Crimes Investigation Unit sent the three on charges of obstruction of business by authority, following a controversy that began right after Hong's appointment in July 2024, which lasted over two years of investigation, concluding that ‘while no personal involvement of the coach was confirmed, there were criminal elements to be considered in the appointment procedures of the association’.
Hong Myung-bo was excluded... The police focused on ‘who had the authority to appoint the coach’
The critical aspect that the police focused on was not Hong’s skills or the national team's performance but the authority and process of the appointment. According to the police investigation, the then-chairman of the National Team Strengthening Committee, Jeong Hae-seong, did not delegate the subsequent appointment process to the association when he resigned.
However, the materials for the board review later indicated that Jeong had delegated the task of appointing a follow-up coach. The police considered problematic that the board materials were drafted as if Lee Im-saeng, the technical director at the time, had legitimate authority to recommend coaching candidates. The police concluded that distributing these materials to the board led to a normal coaching recommendation process and thus obstructed the board’s task of appointing a coach.
The judgment regarding Hong was different. The police could not find evidence that Hong had directly intervened in the appointment process. Consequently, he was cleared of charges implying undue involvement in the appointment process. The ‘Hong Myung-bo appointment controversy’ had persisted for over two years, yet the criminal dispositions of Hong and the association officials diverged significantly.
“Was the salary too high?” Embezzlement suspicion also cleared Hong Myung-bo
Another issue surrounding Hong was the excessive salary paid upon his appointment as the national team coach, which allegedly resulted in financial loss to the association. However, this suspicion was also not recognized at the police level.
The police also dismissed the embezzlement suspicion related to the excessive payment of Hong's salary due to insufficient evidence. As a result, Hong was excluded from prosecution regarding both the suspicions of his involvement in the appointment process and the criminal complaints related to his salary.
The controversy, which began in July 2024, took over two years to investigate.
The case dates back to 2024. After parting ways with coach Jurgen Klinsmann, the Football Association began searching for a new national team head coach. Amidst a long selection process involving many national and international candidates, Hong Myung-bo, then managing Ulsan HD, was eventually chosen. However, issues arose immediately following the announcement.
While the National Team Strengthening Committee had been reviewing candidates for a long time, doubts were raised about whether proper procedures were followed in the final stages. The legitimacy of the process leading up to Hong’s final appointment, especially the interactions with Lee Im-saeng, the technical director at the time, became a hot topic of debate.
Subsequently, civil groups filed complaints, prompting the police to initiate an investigation into Chung Mong-gyu and other association officials starting in July 2024. A total of eight related complaints were filed. However, the investigation struggled to reach a conclusion for a long time. Later, the case was transferred to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Financial Crimes Investigation Unit in July of this year, and the investigation gained momentum.
Investigating over 60 individuals and raiding the Football Association... even scrutinizing cell phones and meeting records.
The scope of the investigation was substantial before reaching a final conclusion. Over 60 individuals, including members of the Power Enhancement Committee, were investigated. Searches were conducted at the offices of the Football Association. The police secured and analyzed records from the Power Enhancement Committee meetings, audit materials from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and electronic information from cell phones. Investigations continued into former association officials, including Chung Mong-gyu, and members of the board and the committee.
Ultimately, the police did not find evidence that Hong had directly intervened in the appointment process. However, they determined that the top officials of the association had included content in the board review materials that differed from the facts regarding the authority to recommend a coach. The case needed to be viewed separately from the beginning, considering the coach's personal involvement and the association's administrative procedures, which became clearer in the police's final disposition.
Kim Jeong-bae went from being a witness to a suspect... alongside Chung Mong-gyu and Lee Im-saeng in the prosecution
A notable aspect was the change in the status of former executive vice-president Kim Jeong-bae. Initially, Kim was interviewed as a witness. However, as the investigation progressed, the police deemed that he had participated in the crime, changing his status to that of a suspect. Ultimately, he was sent to the prosecution along with former chairman Chung Mong-gyu and former technical director Lee Im-saeng.
The charges applied to the three individuals were for obstruction of business by authority. However, ‘sending to prosecution’ does not imply a guilty verdict. It is a stage where the police have determined that there are grounds for charges, and further investigations and judicial processes by the prosecution are pending.
조회수 564
|
추천 0