Third‑Round Questioning Confirms Ongoing Probe On January 18, 2026, Seoul city councilor Kim Kyoung and former aide Nam appeared at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency for a third round of questioning about alleged cash payments tied to the 2022 local‑election nominations [1]. Police said the investigation remains active and no charges have been filed publicly [1]. The focus stays on whether money changed hands to secure a councillorship nomination for Rep. Kang Sun‑woo [1].

Alleged 100 Million‑Won Transfer Links Councilor to Nomination Authorities allege Nam received roughly 100 million won from Kim in exchange for Kang’s councillorship nomination [1][2][3]. Kim told police she personally handed the cash to Kang at a café before the election [1][2][3]. Nam admitted moving an “item” into Kang’s car trunk but claimed he did not know cash was inside [1][2][3]. The alleged payment is central to the bribery accusations surrounding the 2022 local elections [1][2][3].

Kang Sun‑Woo Claims Late Awareness and Returns Cash Kang says she only learned later that her aide accepted the money and instructed him to return it [1][2][3]. She has quit the Democratic Party amid the scandal [1][2][3]. Police announced they will summon Kang for questioning on the Tuesday following the latest interrogations [2][3]. The case continues to focus on the alleged cash‑for‑nomination scheme [2][3].

Police Strategy Expands to Include Direct Summons After multiple interrogations of Nam, investigators plan to bring Kang in for direct questioning, widening the probe beyond the aide [2][3]. The summons underscores police intent to clarify the cash‑handing chain and Kang’s involvement [2][3]. No formal indictment has been issued, and the investigation proceeds without public charges [2][3].

Discrepancies Appear in Questioning Rounds and Amount Description Articles 2 and 3 describe a second round of questioning for Nam, while article 1 reports a third round [1][2][3]. The payment amount is cited as “100 million won” in article 1 but as “over 100 million won” in articles 2 and 3 [1][2][3]. These variations reflect differing reporting timelines and phrasing but do not alter the core allegation.