In the first trial of former President Park Geun-hye (66), among the eighteen charges against the former president, the court found the defendant not guilty in connection to the funds Samsung gave to the Korea Winter Sports Elite Center and to the MI-R Foundation and the K Sports Foundation. Thus this is expected to emerge as the most controversial issue in the future appellate trial. The two charges both fall into the category of bribery involving a third party. In the judicial circle, experts believe that the prosecutors will modify the indictment and add a simple bribery charge to these two allegations in order to draw a guilty verdict in the court. Even if former President Park decides not to appeal, the Prosecution Service has already expressed its intention to appeal the initial ruling. So the court is expected to proceed with the appellate trial.

A look into the ruling on former President Park by Criminal Department 22 (Chief Judge: Kim Se-yun) of the Seoul Central District Court on April 6 shows that the court acquitted the former president on charges of receiving bribes of 1.6 billion won for the Korea Winter Sports Elite Center and 20.4 billion won for two other foundations from Lee Jae-yong (50), vice chairman of Samsung Electronics. The court did not recognize these charges in the first trial of Choi Soon-sil and in the appellate trial of Lee Jae-yong either. In Lee's first trial, the court found him guilty for bribery for the money he handed to the Winter Sports Elite Center, but found him not guilty for the money the company handed to establish the other two foundations.

A person can be punished for bribery involving a third party when someone makes an illicit request to a public official and hands bribes to a third party. In other words, the charges can only hold when the fact that Lee Jae-yong made an illicit solicitation for his succession of the Samsung group to former President Park and handed the money to Choi Soon-sil is recognized. Meanwhile, a simple bribery charge is a crime when a public official, who oversees related tasks, personally receives bribes, even if there was no illicit request.

The judges in former President Park's first trial and in Lee Jae-yong's appellate trial claimed that there was no scheme concerning the succession of management, which is the core of the illicit request, and acquitted the defendants of bribery involving a third party. However, people in the judicial circle argue that the judges applied too narrow a definition of bribery involving a third party. The reason that bribery involving a third party requires illicit solicitation as a premise is to block an excessively broad application of the law in punishing the third party, but an interpretation too narrow fails to punish those who found organizations as an excuse to receive bribes.

Therefore, the prosecution is expected to revise the indictment and add a simple bribery charge in connection to these two allegations in the appellate trial. Earlier when the judges in Lee’s first trial acquitted him of bribery involving the money for the establishment of the two foundations, the special prosecutor also modified the indictment by adding a simple bribery charge in the appellate trial. At the time, the special prosecutor argued, "Samsung paid for the funds needed to establish the foundations that former President Park and Choi Soon-sil tried to establish, and they were the recipients of the bribe." However, the judges in Lee's appellate trial did not side with the special prosecutor. Since the Supreme Court is still reviewing Lee's case, the judges of the former president's appellate trial may make a different judgment.

The legal circle is keeping an eye on how the judges in the former president's first trial found her guilty of misfeasance, coercion, and bribery involving a third party in connection to the 7 billion won that Shin Dong-bin, chairman of Lotte Group handed to fund the K Sports Foundation. Lotte, like Samsung, argued, "We were victims of coercion; we did not seek anything in exchange," but the judges decided that the abuse of authority, coercion and bribery could coexist. One expert in the judicial circle said, "It appears the fact that Lotte made all-round efforts to acquire the duty-free shop license was reflected, and that was why the court recognized bribery involving a third party." He added, "In the case of Samsung, the court needs to recognize that there was illicit solicitation in connection to the succession of the group's management for the charge of bribery involving a third party to hold."