In a significant ruling on obstruction and corporate investigations, Korea’s Supreme Court held that deleting company materials to protect oneself from potential criminal liability does not automatically constitute the crime of evidence destruction.

The case has been sent back for further review.


—

⚖️ Court & Case

Court: Supreme Court of Korea

Division: Criminal Division 3

Decision Date: January 15, 2026

Case No.: 2024도15728

Result: Convictions reversed and remanded



—

🧾 Background

The case arose from a Fair Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into subcontracting law violations involving:

HD Hyundai Heavy Industries


Timeline:

2018: FTC launches investigation.

2019: ₩20.8 billion administrative fine imposed and criminal referral made.

Prosecutors later charged executives for deleting relevant internal materials.


Charges included:

Evidence destruction

Instigation of evidence destruction



—

🏛 Lower Court Outcomes

First Instance

Acquittal.

Court found insufficient proof that deletion was intended to obstruct a future criminal investigation.


Appeal Court

Reversed.

Executive A: 1 year imprisonment.

Executive B: 8 months, suspended for 2 years.

Court reasoned:

Criminal prosecution was reasonably foreseeable.

Deletion constituted destruction of evidence relating to “another person’s criminal case” (i.e., the company’s case).




—

🧠 Supreme Court’s Key Question

The central issue:

> Was this destruction of evidence in “another person’s criminal case” —
or deletion connected to the defendants’ own potential criminal liability?



Under Korean law:

Destroying evidence in another person’s criminal case → punishable.

Destroying evidence relating to one’s own case → generally not punishable (self-defense principle).



—

⚖️ Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court held that the appellate court failed to properly examine:

Whether the executives themselves could be directly criminally liable under joint punishment provisions.

Whether the deletions were made to protect their own legal interests.

Whether their statements truly admitted destroying evidence in “another person’s” case.


The Court emphasized:

Even if evidence was deleted knowing a criminal investigation could occur,

It must still be determined whose criminal case the deletion concerned.

If the deletion relates to one’s own potential liability, the crime of evidence destruction may not be established.


Because the lower court did not sufficiently analyze this distinction, the conviction was overturned.


—

📚 Legal Significance

This ruling reinforces an important doctrinal boundary:

Corporate officers are not automatically guilty of evidence destruction simply because they delete materials before an investigation.

Courts must carefully distinguish between:

Obstructing someone else’s prosecution

Attempting to protect oneself



The decision is especially relevant in regulatory investigations involving:

Fair Trade Commission matters

Antitrust cases

Corporate compliance probes


In white-collar law, the line between obstruction and self-defense can be razor thin — and this ruling insists courts examine it closely.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=216730