On February 24, 2026, the South Korean National Assembly found itself at the center of a political storm as lawmakers voted to approve an arrest consent motion for Kang Sun-woo, an independent lawmaker and former Democratic Party member, over allegations of receiving a 100 million won nomination bribe. The charged atmosphere in the National Assembly plenary session reflected not only the gravity of the accusations but also the deep divisions and procedural complexities that mark the country’s legislative process.
The arrest consent motion passed with 164 votes in favor, 87 against, 3 abstentions, and 9 invalid votes out of 263 cast—numbers that reveal a split within the Assembly and, by extension, the broader political spectrum. According to Yonhap News, the motion required both a majority of lawmakers present and a majority approval to pass, and the vote was conducted by secret ballot. Of the Assembly's 296 total members, 263 participated in the vote, underscoring the high stakes and significant attention the case commanded.
Kang Sun-woo’s political journey has been nothing short of tumultuous. Once a member of the Democratic Party and serving as a member of the Seoul city party’s nomination committee, Kang was expelled from the party after accusations surfaced that he had received a 100 million won bribe from former Seoul city council member Kim Kyung. The alleged exchange took place on January 7, 2022, at a hotel in Seoul’s Yongsan district, during the heated run-up to the local elections. As reported by Chosun Ilbo, Kang was accused of accepting the cash in exchange for ensuring Kim’s nomination as a single candidate, which ultimately led to Kim’s election victory.
The process leading to the vote was as dramatic as the allegations themselves. On February 5, 2026, police requested an arrest warrant for Kang on charges of violating the Political Fund Act, the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, and breach of trust. The prosecution followed through by filing the warrant on February 9, and the court submitted an arrest consent request to the government on February 10. As Justice Minister Jeong Seong-ho explained to the Assembly, the case was supported by testimonies from the alleged donor and other witnesses, records of how the money was used, audio recordings, and the actual nomination results. Jeong emphasized the seriousness of the case, stating, “The evidence recognizes the charges, and considering the gravity of the matter and the risk of flight or destruction of evidence, there is a need for detention.”
Despite the gravity of the accusations, Kang has consistently denied any wrongdoing. In an impassioned personal statement delivered to the Assembly just before the vote, Kang maintained his innocence and described a pattern of returning money whenever it was offered. “Whenever I received money, I returned it,” Kang stated, according to News1. “Over five occasions, I returned a total of 322 million won. They say I demanded 100 million won, but that sum holds no value worth risking my political life or my future.” Kang further argued, “If I had intended to take money in exchange for a nomination, why would I have ordered its immediate return, reported it to the nomination committee secretary, or gone through the trouble of returning it under difficult circumstances?”
Kang’s statement was both a defense and a confession of political naivete. He admitted to being “immature” in his conduct, saying, “I thought I was living by principles, but my actions were clumsy. I confess to having practiced a kind of fashion politics, driven by the satisfaction of making a better world. I did not know my own limits. I apologize.” These words, delivered with what observers described as calm resolve, were met with a mix of sighs from the ruling party benches and silence from his former Democratic Party colleagues, as reported by JoongAng Ilbo.
The debate over Kang’s fate also exposed rifts within the Democratic Party. Despite holding a majority with 162 seats, the party did not set an official line on the arrest consent motion, leaving the decision to individual lawmakers. The Justice Innovation Party, with 12 seats, recommended a vote in favor, while the ruling People Power Party also largely backed the motion. Nevertheless, the tally of 87 votes against and 99 combined abstentions and invalid ballots suggested that a significant portion of the Democratic Party, and perhaps others, were hesitant to support the arrest of a colleague, even one expelled from their own ranks. This hesitancy, as Yonhap News noted, reflects ongoing discomfort with the intersection of legal accountability and legislative privilege in Korean politics.
As the session unfolded, the Assembly was also engaged in heated debate over other legislative matters, including a contentious amendment to the Commercial Act that would require companies to cancel treasury shares within one year. That bill, aimed at bolstering market transparency and shareholder value, was stalled by an opposition-led unlimited debate—an example of how political maneuvering often spills over from headline-grabbing scandals to the nuts and bolts of governance. Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min explained the rationale for the amendment, citing the need for “continuous efforts to establish a fair and transparent market order.” But with the opposition’s filibuster tactics in full swing, progress was slow.
Returning to the central drama, the passage of the arrest consent motion means Kang Sun-woo will soon face a pretrial detention hearing at the Seoul District Court, expected in early March 2026. The legal process will determine whether he is formally detained pending trial—a decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his political future and the broader culture of accountability in South Korean politics.
The case has also sparked renewed debate over the so-called “non-arrest privilege” granted to sitting lawmakers, which requires parliamentary approval for the arrest of a member. Critics argue that this privilege can be abused to shield lawmakers from legal consequences, while supporters claim it is necessary to protect the independence of the legislature from executive overreach. Kang, for his part, declared, “I will not hide behind parliamentary privilege. I am not afraid of anything that will clarify the truth.”
Adding to the complexity, there remain conflicting accounts between Kang and Kim Kyung regarding the return of the money. Kim’s side alleges that, after the initial return, Kang’s camp requested the funds be sent as political donations—a claim Kang flatly denies, insisting all monies were returned and that he took steps to report suspicious donations to authorities.
As the dust settles from the dramatic vote, the eyes of South Korea will be on the courts, where the next act in this saga will play out. The outcome will not only decide the fate of one embattled lawmaker but may also set the tone for how the country balances legal accountability with legislative independence in the years to come.
Whatever the verdict, the events of February 24 have left an indelible mark on South Korea’s political landscape, reminding all that the machinery of democracy, though sometimes messy, continues to grind forward—even when the stakes are personal, political, and profoundly public.