The 8th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office recently sent Tae, the eldest son of former lawmaker Tae Young-ho, to trial while in custody on charges of fraud under the Aggravated Punishment for Specific Economic Crimes Act. Mr. Tae, who fully acknowledged his charges from the police investigation stage, is accused of stealing a total of 1.4 billion won in funds from his acquaintances under the pretext of investing in virtual assets. The core of the case is that Tae's approach to the victims was very planned. He encouraged investment by promising to generate profits, but in reality, the funds did not flow into the virtual asset market and resulted in personal misappropriation. The prosecution clearly identified the true nature of the crime by carefully analyzing records of messenger conversations with the victims, call recordings, and financial transaction details.

The biggest point of controversy in this case is the fact that Tae actively used the name ‘Tae Young-ho’ to justify his crime or gain trust. He went beyond simply mentioning the fact that his father was a member of the National Assembly, and showed meticulousness in directly showing his acquaintances a family relationship certificate and affectionate family photos that could be used as evidence. This was enough to instill false confidence in the victims that ‘an investment place run by the son of a member of the National Assembly would be safe.’ As a result, the social trust of public positions served as a catalyst for crime, which once again reminds us of the weight of responsibility that public officials' families must bear.

Former lawmaker Tae Young-ho is also in a position where he cannot be free from this incident. During the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee audit of government affairs in 2024, former lawmaker Tae bowed his head and expressed his apology for causing social controversy due to his eldest son's deviation. At the time, he was holding the important role of Secretary General of the Advisory Council for Democratic and Peaceful Unification, so he expressed his deep regret for the impact his family's misconduct had on his performance of public office. However, regarding a direct apology or compensation to the victims, the government only gave a general answer that they would wait for the results of the police investigation, and there were many criticisms that the response was insufficient compared to the seriousness of the situation.

Some in the legal community point out that this case goes beyond a simple case of fraud and shows a cross-section of the ‘consciousness of privilege by association’ that often occurs around the political world. Mr. Tae's crime is classified as a typical case of personally using his father's political assets to satisfy his own personal desires. In particular, even though he admitted to the charges before and after being transferred to the police, the victims had already suffered enormous financial losses and a psychological sense of betrayal. The trial of Mr. Tae, who is currently under arrest and indictment, is expected to focus on the whereabouts of the funds he embezzled, the possibility of recovering damages, and the intentionality of the crime.