[News UP] Lee Jae-myung 'Day of Destiny'... What is the issue of the first trial of 'Suspected Perjury Teacher'?

■ Host: Anchor Cho Jin-hyuk
■ Starring: Lawyer Seo Jeong-bin

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

[Anchor]
Let's take a closer look at the relevant content. With lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Please come in. Today's trial will be the first trial for the alleged "perjury teacher," and now CEO Lee Jae-myung will receive two consecutive first trial sentences in 10 days. First of all, can you summarize the suspicion and contents of this perjury teacher?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In 2002, KBS PD impersonated a prosecutor and talked to former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang on the phone, and CEO Lee Jae-myung impersonated a prosecutor in this regard, and he was punished as a joint criminal. Then, 14 years later, around 2018, when there was a related question about Lee Jae-myung during the Gyeonggi governor's debate, Lee said that the incident was framed at the time. And the prosecution saw the remarks as a false announcement and charged them with violating the Public Official Election Act, but the case ended with an acquittal. Kim Jin-sung, the former Seongnam mayor's secretary, made a favorable statement about Lee during the trial, and the content was that Kim Byung-ryang, the mayor of Seongnam, had an opinion to drop the KBS PD's complaint to drive Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit behind the prosecution's impersonation. Since then, the prosecution has been indicted on charges of demanding false testimony in favor of Kim Jin-sung, who said Lee Jae-myung does not remember, and eventually teaching perjury, leading to the current trial. In response to this, Lee Jae-myung's representative has refuted that he did not teach perjury because he only asked Kim Jin-sung to revive his memory and serve as a witness as he was.

[Anchor]
But isn't there perjury and perjury teacher? What needs to be proven for perjury teacher crime to be established?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, perjury must be established. Perjury is established when a sworn witness in court makes a statement contrary to his or her memory. In the case of perjury teachers, they ask others to make such false statements, and when the person actually makes false statements in court, perjury teachers are established. Therefore, the intention of making false testimony and the act of asking for it must be proved, and on the other hand, the fact that there was actual perjury must be proved. In this case, the prosecution refuted the claim by saying that CEO Lee's request for testimony by phone to Kim Jin-sung was a false statement, and that Kim Jin-sung's testimony at the time was also a false statement against his own memory, while Lee Jae-myung's side demanded a statement as it was, and Kim Jin-sung's statement was also a statement that fits his content.

[Anchor]
Does perjury teacher crime usually punish you more harshly than perjury?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. The court sentences perjury teachers to heavy punishment, judging that it is such a serious crime that hinders the state's proper exercise of jurisdiction by making it difficult to discover substantive truth. People who teach perjury are punished more seriously than those who actually perjured them. Because most of the people who teach perjury are either defendants or direct stakeholders in the case, they are punished so seriously because they teach perjury for their own benefit. Given the recent trend of the ruling, more than three out of four cases are sentenced to imprisonment or higher, including probation, in perjury cases, so even if you look at the current trend, you can see that perjury teachers are punished considerably more strictly than other cases.

[Anchor]
You said that there is a high probability that a perjury teacher will be convicted. Let's move on to September of last year. When Lee's arrest warrant was dismissed, the court said that the perjury teacher charge appeared to be cleared, but the fact that the judge in charge of the warrant admitted this part could be against Lee Jae-myung in the actual trial, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. It's clear that it's a fairly disturbing factor. Even in the case of a warrant review, the judge eventually reviews the evidence records submitted by the prosecutor and decides whether to issue a warrant or not, so if the charges have already been clarified in the substantive examination, such a judgment is likely to continue in a subsequent criminal trial. Of course, in the case of a warrant review, it is difficult to carefully judge all evidence if the evidence is very large or if the case is complicated, as it is necessary to decide whether to issue a warrant as soon as possible, but it is possible that this case was also the case, but at least when looking at the major records and major evidence at the time, it was judged that the perjury teacher was the calling, so the court could see that there was already a lot of evidence that was quite unfavorable to representative Lee Jae-myung, and as long as there was a judgment that the charges were cleared in the preceding procedure, Lee's side has no choice but to bear a considerable burden.

[Anchor]
But from September last year to now, is there a possibility that new evidence has been released or a new interpretation can be made? [Seo Jeongbin] That's possible. In particular, the content of such transcripts of Lee Jae-myung and Kim Jin-sung is more important or major issues than at the time, and the conclusion may vary depending on whether to interpret the entire content as a perjury teacher of Lee Jae-myung or whether to consider the request as it is, and how to view the transcripts may be an important variable because there is a possibility that it has not been specifically reviewed at the warrant stage.

[Anchor]
Earlier, the lawyer said that the perjury teacher's crime can be established only when perjury is made, but Kim Jin-sung, who was handed over to the trial, said he admits the charges. There is a prospect that it is difficult for representative Lee Jae-myung to be released without charge because there is a confession from the perjury party. What do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
It seems that Kim Jin-sung's confessional statement can be a crucial and unfavorable evidence for Lee Jae-myung. Kim Jin-sung is a person who is being handed over to trial on charges of perjury and is on trial, and he confesses that he has perjured himself, so this can be used as evidence against Lee Jae-myung immediately. In the end, representative Lee Jae-myung must prove that Kim Jin-sung's statements are not true, or even if these are true, he has not taught about them, which is not easy, and on the other hand, from the court's point of view, Lee's side is arguing that there seems to have been external pressure on the person who is on trial for perjury. Therefore, I think that Kim Jin-sung's confession can be decisive evidence in this case.

[Anchor]
The prosecution has asked for three years in prison. It is said that this is the highest sentence according to the sentencing criteria. You're judging that it's a serious crime, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. The prosecution has been sentenced to three years, and this is, in the end, almost the maximum sentence among the areas of aggravated punishment in terms of sentencing standards. As such, it seems that the perjury teachers were severely punished, and the prosecution made a sentence accordingly. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility of being acquitted depending on how we evaluate the overall context of the conversation between Lee Jae-myung and Kim Jin-sung. If we judge them guilty, under that premise, if we consider them guilty, we can say that they are more likely to be suspended than fines, but on the other hand, there are some areas that cannot be easily predicted. In particular, in the case of Lee Jae-myung's trial under the Public Official Election Act, the remarks to the effect that he was falsely accused at the time correspond to evaluative expressions rather than facts. I was acquitted for this reason. In other words, it was a sentence that did not affect Kim Jin-sung's testimony, so considering this point, it can be seen as a reason for mitigation rather than a reason for aggravation in the court, so it seems very difficult to predict this situation in the current situation.

[Anchor]
However, if you listen to the explanation, you can read that the current situation is generally unfavorable to representative Lee Jae-myung, but in the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act on the 15th, representative Lee Jae-myung was sentenced to one year in prison and two years of probation. If even a perjury teacher is found guilty this time, there is a prospect that it will be difficult to resolve judicial risks in the future. What do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The last trial under the Public Official Election Act was also sentenced to one year in prison and two years of probation, which is a great political blow in itself, but this case is also expected to be hit hard depending on the results. Even if it is not an election crime, if it is sentenced to imprisonment or higher and confirmed, the right to run for election will be deprived until it becomes effective. If you are sentenced to more than a prison sentence today, you will likely be deprived of your opportunity as a presidential candidate in the future. In addition, most of the ongoing trials in addition to this case are expected to be sentenced to prison unless they are innocent. However, if cases that have just begun to be sentenced are convicted and sentenced to prison, the burden and anxiety on other trials will inevitably increase, and if any of them are convicted, they are expected to be deprived of their right to run for election.

[Anchor]
Anyway, if you count the trials you mentioned now, there are five, and all of these have to go to the Supreme Court and then the sentence is confirmed, so that the right to run for election is also decided. And now, in the political world, if Representative Lee Jae-myung is sentenced to prison without probation in the first trial today, it is also a topic of whether he can be arrested in court. What do you think of this part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, lawmakers cannot be arrested or detained without the consent of the National Assembly during the session, except for current offenders under the current law. That's why an arrest agreement is needed, but in the past, the National Assembly passed an arrest agreement for representative Lee Jae-myung around September 2023, but the arrest warrant was rejected at the time. Therefore, the question of whether the arrest agreement is still in effect in this case is being raised, but the effect of the arrest agreement on the case is still maintained in the trial of this case because it was passed at that time on the part of the People's Power. Therefore, they say that if they are sentenced to prison, they can be arrested in court, and in the case of the Democratic Party, a separate arrest agreement is needed. In my personal opinion, since the prosecution's request for an arrest warrant for representative Lee Jae-myung was eventually dismissed at the time, it seems legally reasonable to think that the arrest agreement at that time has now become invalid, so even if he is sentenced to prison this time, he will not be able to be arrested in court unless the new arrest agreement is passed.

[Anchor]
He also gave his personal opinion.Ma said, If there is no political agreement in this situation where the people's power and the opinions of the Democratic Party are divided on this part, can this also lead to a legal dispute?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, since that is a part that should be contested by the National Assembly in the end, if the motion is not passed or is not issued for the arrest motion, the court cannot exercise coercion or indirect means against it. That's why this is a problem that needs to be solved politically in the end.

[Anchor]
Now, attention is being paid to what kind of ruling the court will make, but the court did not allow the live broadcast. What's the reason?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The court decided not to film or broadcast in consideration of the relevant legal interests and the progress of the case. In fact, this is the same as the last trial on the Public Official Election Act, which did not allow broadcasting in consideration of related legal interests for the same reason. In fact, the rules say that if the defendant agrees or even if it is judged that there is a public interest, the presiding judge can decide to broadcast live at his discretion, but it seems that he did not allow the broadcast because he considered various legal interests as the issue was sensitive.

[Anchor]
So, it cannot be said that the benefit of disclosing such a trial is greater than if it did not, and this is how I judged it. And even after today's sentencing, trials related to representative Lee Jae-myung are scheduled in a row. Can you briefly tell me what are the remaining trials?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In addition to violations of the Public Official Election Act and perjury teacher cases, trials are underway in a total of eight cases, including the Daejang-dong, Baekhyun-dong breach of trust, Wirye New Town, Seongnam FC illegal donation, remittance allegations, and Gyeonggi-do corporate card-related breach of trust recently indicted, and most of them are just beginning or in full swing. So, regardless of the trial, it's a case that has a huge impact depending on the conclusion, and if you look at any one of them, CEO Lee Jae-myung is guilty. And if they are found not guilty, the prosecution has no choice but to appeal unconditionally. And there is no complicated case, so all these cases will not end in the first trial, but it can be seen that they are scheduled for the second and third trials. That's why it will take at least two years for the fiercely contested cases to eventually be confirmed by the Supreme Court in the future. Or I think it can be seen as events that can take more than that.

[Anchor]
Since some cases have been merged now, it seems that there are a total of five trials, but you said that the trial could be very long if the appeal trial is expected. But isn't there a mandatory regulation in the court? Do I not have to keep this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. In particular, in the case of mandatory regulations, the first trial and the appeals court and the Supreme Court stipulate that the sentence should be sentenced within six months for election crimes and election crimes. However, there are no such regulations in cases that are not related to other sentences. Therefore, even if these mandatory regulations apply to some trials, on the other hand, there is no means to enforce them if they are violated, so I hope they comply with them. These are not restrictions that will be imposed upon violating them or that sanctions will be imposed against the accused, so I think the court will take enough time to understand the relationship of reality as it is a sensitive case like this.

[Anchor]
I will summarize that there is a possibility that the trial may inevitably be prolonged. Let's stop here. I was with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Thank you.