Lee Jae-myung on the "judicial bench"...Next week's perjury teacher will be sentenced to D-2 in the first trial.

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Bori, anchor Cho Jin-hyuk
■ Starring: Attorney Seo Jeong-bin

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [Newswide] when quoting.

[Anchor]
With the first trial of the perjury teacher case scheduled for next Monday, both Lee Jae-myung and the prosecution filed an appeal against the violation of the Public Official Election Act. Let's take a look at the main issues as well as the main events of the week. With lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Please come in. Hello, CEO Lee Jae-myung's trial is continuing one after another. It's next Monday in two days. The first trial of the perjury teacher case is scheduled. I think the main point of this case is that representative Lee Jae-myung demanded false testimony in connection with the prosecutor impersonation case. Can you explain it in detail?

[Jeongbin Seo]
We have to go back to 2002 to get a little bit of a handle on this case. In 2002, a KBS PD impersonated a prosecutor and spoke to the mayor of Seongnam at the time, and CEO Lee Jae-myung was eventually punished for a joint offense for impersonating here. Then, 14 years later, in May 2018, in response to a related question at the Gyeonggi governor's election debate, Lee said he was framed, and the prosecution saw the statement as a false announcement and charged him with violating the Public Official Election Act. But the trial ended up not guilty. Kim Jin-sung, a former secretary for Seongnam Mayor, testified during the trial, which was to the effect that former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang had an opinion that the charges against the broadcaster PD should be dropped in order to drive Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit behind the prosecution's impersonation. However, the prosecution later found the contents of the phone call between CEO Lee Jae-myung and Kim Jin-sung, and was indicted on charges of perjury and perjury, respectively, leading to this trial. The prosecution says that CEO Lee asked Kim Jin-sung for false testimony in his favor and even sent an order by sending a summary of his argument, and Kim Jin-sung gave false testimony in response to it. And in response, Lee Jae-myung's side refutes that at the time, he only asked Kim Jin-sung to make a statement as he remembered, and that he did not teach perjury.

[Anchor]
I mean perjury teacher, that is, perjury, but what requirements must be required for this to be established under the criminal law?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, we need to see perjury. In the case of perjury, perjury is established when a witness sworn by law makes a false statement contrary to his or her memory, and here, a teacher refers to an act of making others decide to do such perjury and practice it. However, in order to punish a teacher for a teacher's crime, someone must actually perjure to establish a perjunction. In the end, representative Lee Jae-myung is claiming that he has never taught perjury and did not intend to teach perjury because he only asked for the story as it is.

[Anchor]
As you said, CEO Lee meant that I didn't teach perjury, but to say it as I remember, but Kim Jin-sung admitted that this was perjury in his perjury trial. And on top of that, the court said last year that the charges of perjury teachers appear to be cleared. If you say that the perjury teacher charge seems to be clarified here, does it mean that there is a suspicion that it is, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. In fact, as you said now, Kim Jin-sung is in a position to admit that he perjured himself at the trial and that he perjured himself after receiving Lee Jae-myung's teacher, and on the other hand, the court judged that the allegations of perjuring teachers seemed to have been explained to some extent in the actual arrest warrant last year, but both of these are actually quite unfavorable to Lee. First of all, it would have been difficult to thoroughly review all of these vast evidence records because the warrant review must decide whether to issue a warrant within a fairly short period of time. Based on the main evidence, however, it seems that such a conclusion was made because of the suspicion of perjury, and if so, at least at that time, there seemed to have been a lot of evidence that was quite unfavorable to CEO Lee Jae-myung. In the case of Kim Jin-sung, the person who gave perjury admits that I received the perjury and confesses that I received the teacher again. This is, of course, evidence of a statement that is quite unfavorable to CEO Lee Jae-myung. Therefore, representative Lee Jae-myung is pleading that Kim Jin-sung seems to be making a different argument from the truth under external pressure, but in the end, the credibility of Kim Jin-sung's confession should be undermined. This seems to be a very important issue as to how far we can prove and how far we can find suspicious circumstances.

[Anchor]
In September last year, the court said that the charges of perjury teachers appear to be cleared. If so, since there is a time difference between then and now, if new evidence or some testimony came out in the meantime, wouldn't the court's view that it seems to have been clarified at this time change?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's quite possible. A case in point is the contents of the transcript of the conversation between CEO Lee and Kim, which the prosecution submitted as evidence to prove the perjury teacher's allegation, but CEO Lee Jae-myung claims that it is evidence that there was no perjury teacher. In fact, if you look at the contents, there is a request from Representative Lee Jae-myung to explain something and testify to this content and remarks to this effect. If you look at this, you might suspect that he was a perjury teacher, but if you look at the overall conversation, CEO Lee Jae-myung asks for testimony on these facts, asking him to make a statement as he remembers, and asking him to tell the truth anyway.

So looking at these points, in fact, from a lawyer's point of view, there are often cases where these favorable witnesses explain some facts and nevertheless ask them to make a statement as they remember. So, considering that, this transcript can be evidence that can represent the position of representative Lee Jae-myung, so depending on this evidence or statements made during the subsequent witness examination, a different conclusion may be drawn from what was initially judged in the warrant.

[Anchor]
The prosecution has sought the maximum sentence of three years for perjury teacher charges. What is the level of punishment usually for perjury teachers?

[Jeongbin Seo]
According to the sentencing guidelines, those who teach perjury are more punished than those who have perjury, and sentences are recommended for up to three years. Crimes such as perjury tend to be punished a little more seriously because there is a big problem that can lead to misjudgment of the courts and the judiciary if such crimes occur a little differently from other crimes. I recently analyzed the results of the five-year perjury and perjury teacher crimes in the media, and now about 40% of cases have been sentenced to prison and 37% have been suspended. So, even if you look at this, you can see that in the case of perjury teachers, they are quite likely to be sentenced to prison even if there is at least a probation rather than a fine.

[Anchor]
One of the reasons we pay attention to Lee's sentence is whether he is deprived of his right to vote. In this case, how much is the sentence and will it be deprived of the right to run for election?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In this case, if a sentence of probation or higher is sentenced, the right to run for election will be restricted under the Public Official Election Act, so we are very interested in whether a fine, probation, or innocence will come out.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, both representative Lee Jae-myung and the prosecution appealed in connection with the violation of the Public Official Election Act. Both sides are likely to have a fierce legal battle, but if this proceeds according to the court's mandatory regulations, a higher court's judgment will be made every three months. What do you think about the possibility of the first trial's judgment being overturned?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, it seems to be quite difficult to predict now. It hasn't been long since the sentence was announced, and since he recently appealed, it is not easy to predict whether this can be reversed in the second trial. Personally, I think that among the guilty parts, the judgment related to the statement that the photo, which was taken with Kim Moon-ki, was fabricated, could be judged differently by the court and by the second trial. Because the first trial court did not interpret the statement that such a photo was fabricated, but interpreted it once again, and interpreted it as saying that he did not play golf with Kim Moon-ki at the time of his overseas business trip. Therefore, the opinion that this interpretation is too over-interpreted is also persuasive. If something changes, I think this is the most likely part.

[Anchor]
In the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act, it took a very long time until the first trial. In the case of the second trial, can I speed it up?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, the Public Official Election Act stipulates that such election crimes should be sentenced within six months in the first trial and within three months in the second and third trials. In fact, even in this case, it took about two years and two months and quite a long time for the first trial to be sentenced. Of course, in the second trial, the period is expected to be much shorter than in the first trial. Because major investigations and evidence investigations have been conducted in the first trial, the time seems to be much shorter in the second trial, which makes another judgment based on that, but representative Lee Jae-myung is strongly criticizing the first trial decision anyway and preparing for future hearings. Therefore, unlike the current regulations, it seems that some time is needed.

[Anchor]
Then, I was curious about this, too. There is a mandatory regulation, but as you said, didn't the first trial exceed that period? Is there any obligation to keep this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Mandatory regulations themselves are obligated to comply with them, and of course, the court hopes and strives to comply with these mandatory regulations, but in actual cases such as the Public Official Election Act or complex cases, there are very few cases where they can be handled within a set period. In fact, even if a fine of more than 1 million won is sentenced, it will be invalid or deprived of the right to run for election, so many of these mandatory regulations are not actually observed, and even if they are not, there is no big problem, so considerable time is expected to be spent in this case.

[Anchor]
This time, let's take a look at the Dongduk Women's University case. There is a controversy as facilities are damaged throughout the school. Can you give me an overview of the case?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Rumors that Dongduk Women's University will be converted to co-educational around November 5, 2024 began to circulate in the school community, and the student council asked the school, and they received a reply that there was such a discussion, but it was not officially proposed as an agenda for the meeting yet. Since then, the student council and some students have occupied the school building or damaged sidewalk blocks and statues on campus with lacquer or paint, and the job fair originally scheduled for the 12th has been canceled due to students storming and damaging objects.

[Anchor]
First of all, it is known that the occupation of the classroom and such parts have been lifted after the student council and the school agreed, but the problem is that the school claims that up to 5.4 billion won of damage was caused by damage to facilities in the school. However, the Chonghak believes that they have nothing to do with such damage as Lacquerchil. Which one should I believe? What do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, as to which side is telling the truth, we cannot judge it now because we have to check the facts. In the end, if things like responsibility are not confirmed and things like compensation are not resolved, it seems that the school may even consider a lawsuit for damages. However, if it is moved on to a lawsuit for damages, the illegal activities of the student council must be recognized in the end, but whether these can be proven, such acts of damage are irrelevant to them at the current student council. They even claim that they have lost control of the students, so they are not responsible. If so, the university should prove whether the student council instructed the students to do so, or whether the executives of the student council were directly involved, or at least encouraged the students to do so. In fact, this part is also quite questionable, so I think the university responsible for proof will have considerable difficulty in filing a lawsuit.

[Anchor]
As the story of the large cost of damage came out, there were also voices saying that students who participated in the protest should be held responsible for civil and criminal matters. Can you specify the students who attended the protest?

[Jeongbin Seo]
If you attend such a demonstration and damage the objects, you may be guilty of damage or obstruction of business. So, if the facts are confirmed, they can be punished, and the defense logic that students did this in opposition to the school's policy is a little less convincing. However, as you said, it is a question of whether we can specify the students who caused this problem, but looking at the contents so far, it seems that students are not identified by wearing masks while participating in the protest. If so, it is difficult to identify students even with CCTV, so is there a way to identify these students in other ways? In fact, it seems to be quite difficult. If you can't identify students like this, it seems like it's actually difficult to hold these individuals to account.

[Anchor]
So, even if the school property was damaged, it would be difficult to find the damaged student, and if the school principal did not order the damage, it would be difficult to hold the school principal accountable. You said that now. On the other hand, there was also a claim of 300 million won for damages for the failure of the job fair. On this part, he also expressed his position that he would not be able to attend Dongduk Women's University. What do you think of this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The logic is basically the same here. The student council says that we were not involved in various protests and that we were not involved in such acts of damage. Likewise, the job fair is also in the position that they have nothing to do with it. As I said, we need to specify who did this, but if the student council has not actually been involved, such evidence will not come out, and even if there is no evidence to confirm it, it is not expected that it will be easy to prove this part because the school will eventually be responsible for proving it when it goes to legal disputes later.

[Anchor]
Finally, let's briefly review the Yonsei University essay leak case. The court ruled in favor of the examinee. So, fairness has been undermined, is this how you see it?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. The court added these explanations as it made its decision. At that time, the essay screening was determined only by essay scores, but in order for the test to be fair, the conditions such as prior information on the test questions must be the same for all students. However, due to the nature of this problem, which has a clear answer and increases the probability of getting the answer in proportion to the solution time, the fairness of the test cannot be guaranteed if some candidates have encountered the questionnaire in advance, and the conditions between the candidates were not the same, and the fairness of the essay test has been seriously damaged.

[Anchor]
But the problem is that the entrance examination process is in progress. The 13th of next month is the day when the final successful applicants will be announced, so can the court make a judgment before then?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I'm also a little doubtful whether the original decision will actually be made until then. Although there are still weeks left, it is a little questionable whether Yonsei University will be able to draw the conclusion by that time because it has been pleading that the fairness of the test has not been compromised or that the school is not responsible. Of course, Yonsei University has recently been asked by the Ministry of Education to come up with any measures before the early admission process ends on the 26th of next month, so it seems that it is time to come up with some new measures even before the main decision.

[Anchor]
If the court's judgment is delayed or the legal battle continues, confusion in entrance examinations will be inevitable. There should be no victims of good faith. What rational solutions are realistically possible?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, legally, it is possible to question the issue of the fairness of the test, but it is not possible to specifically suggest countermeasures or solutions afterward. That's why the court has not specifically mentioned these things because we need to respect the autonomy of the university when it comes to whether or not Yonsei University has come up with any measures so far. Because I am not an education expert, I cannot mention specific measures, but at least it is clear that the later the measures are taken, the greater the damage to students who took the essay test at the time, so I think it should be faster for the school to come up with alternatives as soon as possible and discuss them with students.

[Anchor]
Legal issues in major cases, with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Thank you for talking today.