On August 13, 2026, South Korea's JTBC reported that, regarding allegations of sexual entertainment provided by the Korea Football Association to foreign referees, prosecutors who were in charge of the investigation at the time had decided not to indict two association officials.

According to the article, regarding the allegations that the Korea Football Association (KFA) provided sexual entertainment to foreign referees between 2011 and 2012, related details of this issue were confirmed in an audit by South Korea's Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism in 2016, but it had not been publicly disclosed.

According to the statement of non-indictment obtained by JTBC, at the time, the police had investigated the association officials on suspicion of occupational malfeasance. However, prosecutors determined that the entertainment provided by the officials was "an act carried out for the benefit of the Korea Football Association, not for personal gain." Consequently, they were found to have no suspicion and were not brought to trial. Prosecutors explained that although they "were aware of the situation" regarding the sexual entertainment allegations at the time, the statute of limitations expired because the police did not formally open a case, making further investigation impossible. They stated that it was difficult to indict them for occupational malfeasance.

Meanwhile, the article pointed out that this decision could contradict past precedents set by the Supreme Court of Korea (Daebeopwon). In 2013, in a case where a company used company funds to offer rebates to secure a contract, the Supreme Court ruled that "criminal acts should not be used as a means in corporate activities." It had ruled that even if an act was intended for the benefit of the company, responsibility for crimes related to funds could not be evaded.

A South Korean lawyer also commented on the prosecutors' decision, stating, "It's unlikely that anyone can easily accept this." He criticized, "If an investigation is concluded simply because someone acted as instructed for the organization's benefit, then one must question the purpose of upholding the law."

Regarding this, South Korean netizens voiced opinions such as: "No matter how many times I read this, I can't accept it," "It's sophistry," "Does this mean anything goes if it's for the benefit of the association?" "I can't understand the logic that it's not a crime if it's for the company or association," "Given that there's even a Supreme Court precedent, why was such a decision made?" and "If it truly was for the benefit of the association, then the organization has an even greater responsibility to explain."

Furthermore, comments included: "What I want to know most is who gave the orders," "This shouldn't be treated as an individual problem; the association's decision-making process should have been investigated," "Considering the trust in South Korean football, there is still an accountability requirement separate from the legal conclusion," and "Just because they weren't indicted doesn't mean the act itself was justified at the time." (Translation and editing by Higuchi)