Seoul, Feb 9 Two former presidential officials of South Korea were handed down suspended prison terms on Wednesday for destroying a transcript of the 2007 inter-Korean summit to cover up the then South Korean president's alleged offer to surrender the de facto western sea border in a retrial of the case.
The Seoul High Court sentenced both Baek Jong-chun and Cho Myoung-gyon, who were national security aides for late former President Roh Moo-hyun, to one year in prison, suspended for two years, overturning the lower courts' not guilty rulings for them, Yonhap news agency reported.
The two were indicted in November 2013 on charges of violating the Act on the Management of Presidential Archives and damaging public digital records amid a lingering political debate over Roh's potentially controversial remarks during the summit talks with then North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in 2007.
The scandal began when a lawmaker from the then main opposition Saenuri Party claimed during a parliamentary audit in October 2012 that Roh suggested giving up the de facto western sea border with North Korea, commonly called the Northern Limit Line (NLL), during the talks.
The North Korea argues the line should be drawn farther south, as it was set unilaterally by the US-led UN Command after the end of the 1950-53 Korean War. Renouncing it would have meant offering the North a greater share of the Yellow Sea.
As lawmakers failed to find the transcript in question from the Presidential Archives, the party brought criminal charges against Baek and Cho, arguing they intentionally destroyed the summit transcript to cover up the president's remarks.
The lower courts had acquitted them of the charges, saying the file cannot be seen as a presidential record, but the Supreme Court remanded the case, saying it is indeed a presidential record read and approved by Roh.
"(The destroyed transcript) is a historic record of great value that should be preserved for future generations," the high court said, convicting the two in line with the top court's ruling.
The court also said it took into consideration the defendants did not make any alteration to the transcript and that the National Intelligence Service has the same file.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor