Hyun Woo-jin, one of Korea’s most prominent private tutoring instructors, has been acquitted at trial of charges that he illegally paid active teachers for mathematics exam questions — with the court finding the payments were legitimate commercial consideration under a private contract, not prohibited gifts under the Anti-Graft Act. Here are the key points.

—

Issue

Do payments made to active public school teachers in exchange for exam questions under a contract for the supply of educational content constitute prohibited gifts under the Kim Young-ran Act (Anti-Graft Act) — or do they fall within the Act’s exception for payments made in satisfaction of a private commercial obligation?

—

Background

– Hyun, 39, is one of Korea’s highest-profile private tutoring instructors, known as an “iltagangsa” — a top-tier lecturer whose courses attract enormous numbers of students. He was indicted in December 2025 along with two active teachers and a textbook development company employee.
– Hyun and the company employee were alleged to have conspired to pay two active teachers a total of ₩346 million between March 2020 and May 2023 in exchange for mathematics exam questions for use in Hyun’s proprietary study materials. A further ₩75 million was allegedly sent under the name of another teacher’s spouse.
– Prosecutors argued Hyun sought to gain competitive advantage by sourcing questions from teachers with experience writing EBS textbook content and university entrance examination materials.
– The broader investigation formed part of a major crackdown on what authorities called a “private tutoring cartel” — police referred 100 individuals including 72 active teachers, three private education companies, and eleven tutors to prosecutors last year. Of those, 46 were indicted.

—

Court Decision

– Seoul Central District Court (Criminal Division 10, Judge Lee Jae-uk) acquitted all defendants on August 26, 2026.
– The court accepted the defendants’ argument that the payments were legitimate contract consideration — compensation for the supply of exam questions under a private commercial agreement — not improper gifts paid to public officials.

The key legal provision was Article 8(3)(3) of the Anti-Graft Act, which exempts from the prohibition on receiving gifts “money or goods provided on legitimate grounds such as performance of an obligation arising from a private transaction.” The court found the payments fell within this exception.

The court’s reasoning rested on a comparison of pricing. Hyun’s operation sourced exam questions not only from active teachers but also from specialist professional companies — and the amounts paid to the active teachers were comparable to what the professional companies received. If the payments to active teachers had vastly exceeded market rates, that disparity would have suggested the surplus was an improper inducement rather than genuine commercial consideration. Because the rates were broadly comparable, the court found the payments reflected the actual value of the content supplied.

On that basis, the court held that punishing a public official for receiving fair market value under a private contract — simply because the arrangement could raise questions about impartiality — was not justified. Criminal punishment is the last resort of law, not the first response to conduct that is commercially defensible.

On the prosecution’s separate argument that the teachers had violated civil service moonlighting restrictions under the State Public Officials Act, the court found this was irrelevant to the Anti-Graft Act analysis: the legality of the private transaction under other laws is not a factor in assessing whether the Article 8(3)(3) exception applies.

—

Key Takeaways

– The Anti-Graft Act’s prohibition on gifts to public officials does not cover payments made at commercially reasonable rates under genuine private contracts, even where the recipient is an active public school teacher.
– The critical question in applying the private transaction exception is whether the payment corresponds to the actual value of what was supplied. Payments that significantly exceed the market rate for equivalent services lose the protection of the exception — the excess becomes an improper gift.
– The legality of the private transaction under other legal frameworks — such as civil service employment restrictions — is a separate question and does not determine whether the Anti-Graft Act exception applies.
– The court’s closing observation — that law is the minimum standard of morality and criminal punishment is the last resort — signals a deliberate choice not to use criminal law to police commercial arrangements that fall outside its intended scope, even where those arrangements raise broader ethical concerns about the relationship between private tutoring and the public examination system.

—

Why This Matters

This acquittal is a significant development in Korea’s ongoing reckoning with the relationship between its massive private tutoring industry and the teachers and examiners who design the public examinations that feed demand for that industry. The court has drawn a clear line: commercial transactions with active teachers at market rates are not criminal — but that line also implies its corollary, that above-market payments to public officials will not receive the same protection. For prosecutors appealing this decision and pursuing the remaining cases in the broader indictment, the pricing comparison methodology the court applied will be the central evidentiary battleground. For policymakers, the acquittal may intensify calls for regulatory rather than criminal solutions to the structural conflict of interest the case exposed.

Article: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260826124000004?input=1195m