[News Now] Lee Jae-myung's 'perjury teacher' was sentenced in the first trial...What are the issues and expected scenarios?

■ Host: Kim Sun-young Anchor
■ Starring: Attorney Kim Kwang-sam

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

[Anchor]
Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, will be sentenced to the first trial for perjury, which will come out at 2 p.m. today. Let's talk with lawyer Kim Kwang-sam about the core content. Welcome. The first trial will be handed down at 2 p.m. today. Usually, if the matter is complicated, it takes a long time to sentence, but what do you think it will be like today?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
In this case itself, there is only one criminal charge. a perjury teacher Then it will not take much time because it's about whether you taught or not to perjure yourself. And the evidence itself is too clear whether it is a transcript or not, and Kim Jin-sung, who was charged with perjury in connection with this, has already confessed, so the judge will not explain for that long whether he is innocent or guilty. That's how I see it.

[Anchor]
Then, if the breaking news starts at 2 o'clock, we will be able to check it in a short time, right?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
I think it's likely to be over within 30 minutes.

[Anchor]
The key is how the sentence will come out today, but there are about four scenarios right now. What are the possible scenarios?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
First of all, the most important thing is whether you are innocent or guilty. So, of course, if he is acquitted, CEO Lee Jae-myung has gained freedom in relation to perjury teachers. Last time, there were two suspended sentences related to the publication of false information, but there are two now, and if one is acquitted today, he can go to the Supreme Court and get acquittal. So you can see that your body has become much lighter. However, if he is convicted today, it will be a question of what the sentence will be.

So the lightest sentence can be considered a fine. Then, he is sentenced to imprisonment or higher, and it seems that imprisonment for imprisonment or higher includes probation. If you are sentenced to probation, of course, you will not be arrested in court. But when he was sentenced to prison. A prison sentence is one year in prison, one year and six months, two years without a clue of probation, and the judge's discretion in the court can do so. In the case of court arrest while sentenced to prison, there are cases where a sentence is made only to guarantee the right to defend the appeal trial without being arrested in court while sentenced to prison. That's why there are a few cases. So today's most important thing is whether you are innocent or guilty, and then briefly, will you be sentenced to prison when you are guilty? Or you can say that this is the only thing left, whether it's a fine or probation.

[Anchor]
The important thing is that there seems to be a wide range of legal interpretations on this part as to whether it is possible to be arrested. In the case of CEO Han Dong-hoon, he can be arrested if the judge decides today because the arrest agreement has already been passed regarding the perjury teacher charge.Another interpretation is that the warrant has been rejected once, so it is impossible to arrest him today. How should I interpret it?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
It's a bit of a complicated legal issue, and then the perspective of legal professionals can be a little different. But the first one was that the arrest agreement was approved last time. So a warrant was filed, but it was rejected. Then, because the crime of perjury is included in the crime of consent to arrest, the judge can sentence him to prison and arrest him in court. This is the first view. The second view is that there are not only perjury teachers in the facts of the crime, but there are also other crimes. So, there is an opinion that a perjury teacher cannot be arrested in court. The other is that the warrant has already been dismissed, so the validity of the arrest agreement has disappeared when the warrant has been rejected.

Then, there is an opinion that we should get a motion for arrest again. The last view is that this doesn't come out that much, but in general, when the court decides whether it is guilty or not guilty, so this does not apply to the lawmaker's non-arrest privilege. Therefore, there is an opinion that because it is the discretion of the judge, the judge can of course arrest him while sentenced to prison. But there was no such case anymore. As a result, your views change a lot, you can see it like this.

[Anchor]
Regarding CEO Lee Jae-myung's perjury teacher allegations, the judiciary has been mentioned to some extent, so we should pay attention to that, but Yoo Chang-hoon, a judge in charge of warrants, rejected the warrant at the time and was explained about the perjury teacher allegations. How should I interpret that?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
First of all, we don't use the word proven at the warrant stage. In the case of a conviction in court, it is said that it has been proven and proved, but a vocation is lower than a proof. So, in the warrant stage, the trial did not go through formal evidence investigation procedures, so it was explained when the evidence submitted by the prosecution determined that the crime was recognized. So, Chairman Lee Jae-myung was convicted in connection with the publication of false information last time in the Democratic Party of Korea, but I think he took it a little easy.

that there is a possibility of innocence But actually, I paid a lot of attention to the perjury teacher. The reason is that the warrant judge is already explained at the warrant stage, so if it is explained, there is a high possibility of conviction. So, it seems that he posted more SNS on the perjury teacher and talked about it at an outdoor rally.

[Anchor]
Is today's first trial court also referring to the previous judgment? What's going to happen?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
In principle, we don't take it into account. This is because even though it was an explanation at that time, if representative Lee Jae-myung is a witness who can impeach the explanation during the trial or if he gives other evidence, the explanation can be broken. However, it became a calling at that time, but did CEO Lee Jae-myung present something that could break this decisively in court? I think that's what we can see with interest. So, as it is said that it has been clarified, there is a high possibility that he will be guilty unless there is any change in circumstances after that. That's what I usually see.

[Anchor]
In any case, the key evidence that the prosecution is now putting forward is the transcript. This is the details of the phone call I had with Kim Jin-sung in the past. I'll listen to that one more time. Let's listen to it. CEO Lee Jae-myung talks about this transcript. I asked you to tell me the truth as it is. It's an argument like, "What kind of perjury is this?" How did you hear that?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
But this transcript takes about 30 minutes. But if you just said, "Please remember the truth without everything," it would not be a perjury teacher at all. However, because he asked me to state the truth in the middle of talking about something else, Chairman Lee Jae-myung claims that it is the Democratic Party of Korea and the prosecution claims something, but if you look at it separately, that's what Chairman Lee Jae-myung's position is like.
I asked you to tell me the truth, tell me what you remember. It comes out in the transcript.

But there may be a question of whether this is sincere, and the first one is. Next, they say that they are failed teachers. He is a failed perjury teacher. So even if you asked for perjury, Kim Jin-sung did not talk about it as perjury teacher because he was originally a perjury teacher. Then, the failed perjury teacher will be punished if there is a conspiracy preliminary crime, but the perjury teacher has no conspiracy preliminary crime. Representative Lee Jae-myung and the Democratic Party of Korea are implementing the logic that if they fail, they cannot be punished. And then the prosecution's position is like that. If you ask me to tell you the truth as I remember it, I think I left some room for perjury and get out of it. If you asked me to tell you the truth, why would I call twice and call my lawyer?

Also, is it necessary to convey the opinion of the attorney? And among the contents, I'll do what I remember, but I'll send you a summary of my argument, so telling Kim Jin-sung that it's obvious that the perjury teacher is doing it, so the prosecution claims that it's guilty or innocent depending on which of the two arguments you accept.

[Anchor]
Isn't there a comment that CEO Lee Jae-myung will send a summary of his argument among the recordings you just heard? How do you think this part will be interpreted?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
That's a critical disadvantage for CEO Lee Jae-myung. I'll send you a summary of my argument, so I'm telling you to revive your memory. However, if you say you don't remember it, but if you ask me to testify in court like this, there is still room for it to be a perjury teacher. So it would be nice to actively testify as I remember, and even though I don't remember, that part is actively a perjury teacher, so there's room for the judge to see it as the most direct evidence of guilt.

[Anchor]
The recording of the phone call in December 2018 is now being held out by the prosecution as decisive evidence that could hold Lee Jae-myung back. What is the background of Kim Jin-sung, a former secretary of the former mayor of Seongnam, calling Lee Jae-myung directly and saying this?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
First of all, you're being tried for the publication of false information. But if you are not acquitted at that trial, your right to run for election can be suspended for more than 10 years. That's why your political fate is at stake. In general, when we request a case, the client does not call the witness directly and ask him to testify falsely, but rather stops us if he says he should testify according to these facts.

Because even if the person comes out and testifies in our favor, the credibility of the statement is broken if the prosecutor asks if he has spoken to the accused in court. So maybe at that time, CEO Lee Jae-myung was quite urgent. That's why you're the one who's involved in the case. Even though you are a defendant, don't you mean that you called twice like that and the lawyer called you again? Then, he called me three times and sent me the summary of my argument. Then CEO Lee Jae-myung had to be acquitted in that case, so he called after a lot of consideration, but he didn't know it was recorded, and Kim Jin-sung didn't record it intentionally.

[Anchor]
Didn't you record it on purpose?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
At that time, I didn't record it, but I went back to the automatic recording function and when it was recorded, the prosecution found the recording file while investigating Kim Jin-sung. So I heard that this was a perjury teacher, and the prosecution judged it and investigated and prosecuted it.

[Anchor]
Then, I heard that the recorded file was accidentally found during the seizure and search process, so please explain the process.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
So Kim Jin-sung was probably a mediator, and he was being investigated by the prosecution in relation to a bribery case. That's why the prosecution raided and searched while investigating. But one of the most important things about the search and seizure is the cell phone. I raided my cell phone, and the recording file I shared with CEO Lee Jae-myung was automatically stored in it. So when I play this file, the purpose of continuing to ask, in relation to the testimony.

So I think this is a perjury teacher's crime. At that time, the Democratic Party of Korea had an inspection and inspection. The prosecution originally did not have the authority to investigate the crime of perjury. However, CEO Han Dong-hoon revised the enforcement ordinance when he became the Minister of Justice. So when it comes to corruption-related crimes, it was at that boundary because it allowed perjury and perjury teachers to be investigated. So in the end, they investigated and were prosecuted.

[Anchor]
Since the Democratic Party of Korea investigated it with an enforcement decree, it could be invalidated itself, and the court could interpret it that way, so what do you think of that part?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
It won't be easy. Because legally, the back is attached to it. If you are back, you can do it in a related case, so it seems difficult for the court to accept it, and if the court said there was a problem with it, it would have asked the prosecution to explain this part during the trial. The judge doesn't think there's anything wrong with that, so the judge doesn't say anything else about that.

[Anchor]
You said that today's court's judgment itself is not that complicated, but if you go back to the beginning of this case, it goes back quite a long time.
It can be traced back to 22 years ago, but the so-called prosecutor impersonation case of CEO Lee Jae-myung was the starting point.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
At that time, he was fined 1.5 million won for impersonating a prosecutor in 2002. But I'm going on an election broadcast in relation to that. He goes on the Gyeonggi governor's election broadcast and says he was framed. Then, if you say you were falsely accused, you will be fined, so why are you falsely accused? This was prosecuted for violating the election law because it was a false announcement, but the Supreme Court reversed and returned it to the effect of innocence. At that time, the question was whether Kim Jin-sung perjured in that trial. That's why it was revealed later. That's why I was newly indicted as a perjury teacher. So the content is a little complicated.

Because there is a trial in the middle, and then in which trial did you perjure yourself? There are aspects that viewers cannot understand, but the principle is that it is a problem by impersonating a prosecutor, and because he was falsely accused of not impersonating a prosecutor, he was indicted for publicizing false information, and in that trial, Kim Jin-sung was found to have perjured himself, so CEO Lee Jae-myung went to court as a perjurer.

[Anchor]
So, in the case of Kim Jin-sung, the person who recorded this call, he confessed to perjury, right?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
That's right. This is also a very unfavorable factor for CEO Lee Jae-myung. In general, if there is a perjury teacher, if there is a perjury, the perjury person did not perjure me, as I remember, and as I remember, it is a common case to argue for innocence, but CEO Lee Jae-myung said that he did not perjure himself, and the person who received perjure said that I did not, and the person who received the perjure teacher made a statement in court because I was taught like that. Then, in a way, the arguments are different. Then the person who claims to have perjured will be punished. Who gave you perjury?

[Anchor]
Kim Jin Sung, will you be sentenced today?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
That's right. They're accomplices together, so they'll be sentenced today. However, it is a matter of judgment if the perjured person perjured, but if the perjured person did not, it can be seen as an unfavorable factor for the perjured person if the perjured person confesses.

[Anchor]
In any case, in a final trial last September, the prosecution demanded a three-year prison term for CEO Lee Jae-myung. Let's take a moment to hear what CEO Lee Jae-myung, who attended the final hearing, said at the time. It's a combination of prosecutors. In this way, CEO Lee Jae-myung has continued to make such claims while denying the allegations of perjury, and the sentence is three years. Usually, in previous trials, about half of the sentence was often sentenced, but how much do you personally expect?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
If I'm convicted, I'll be sentenced to about a year to a year and a half in prison, look at it like this. And I won't be in court. Because he is the leader of the opposition party and there is no fear of running away. However, what representative Lee Jae-myung claims is really salty and if it is evidence-rigging, as representative Lee Jae-myung said earlier, he will be acquitted. If you don't, you'll be sentenced, but so far, if you're convicted, you don't see the nature of the crime very well. It's a kind of obstruction of the justice system.

[Anchor]
Does the victim become a perjury teacher? What's going to happen?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
This itself can be seen as a court because it interferes with judicial proceedings in principle. So in general, the court sentences a very severe sentence for crimes that interfere with the court's justice. Therefore, more than 90% of cases of perjury teachers are sentenced to prison terms and at least 90% of cases are sentenced to probation or higher for six years, even if they are the same. About 95%. So there aren't that many cases of fines.

But even in that case. Do you admit to a crime or not? Also, how much influence did the perjury person have on the trial when he was a perjury teacher? Then, we comprehensively judge whether we will have an attitude during the trial process. However, the sentence is relatively strong because they do not see the teacher very well. The prosecution's three-year prison sentence also demanded the maximum amount that can be demanded from the general perjury teacher crime. Of course, we could do more. It can be done for 5 or 10 years, but according to its own sentencing standards, the maximum that can be done for about 3 years can be seen as this.

[Anchor]
It's the best thing to be innocent only from the standpoint of representative Lee Jae-myung, and if it comes out with a suspended sentence, how can it be explained in relation to political fate?

[Kim Kwang-sam]
It depends on whether there is a suspended sentence and a prison sentence, but if the suspended sentence is confirmed, the lawmaker will be deprived. And the right to run for election, that is, the presidential election, cannot come out during the probation period. Then, if you go to the Supreme Court, the probation period could be longer. We'll go back until the presidential election. Then, if a prison sentence is sentenced, if it is confirmed, of course, the parliamentary seat will be lost. In addition, since the right to run for election is also deprived, in the end, following the last trial, not only his own fate, political fate, but also in some cases, he may be arrested in court. From my point of view, today has become a watershed moment in judicial risk, you can see it like this.

[Anchor]
Today's ruling will change the weight of the judicial risk.We're talking about these things. Finally, CEO Lee Jae-myung has three more trials left except for two trials in the first trial and until today. Please organize the remaining trial schedules in the future.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
There are three more trials left, but the charges are much higher. That's why Baekhyun-dong, Daejang-dong, and Seongnam FC are here. There's a remittance to North Korea. Then there's the corporate credit card case. So, those trials are now violating the Public Official Election Act, and the perjury teacher case related to Kim Jin-sung is actually simple. The sentence is simple and not legally high. But for the rest of the cases, the sentence is except for the corporate car case. If convicted, which can be sentenced to five to ten years. Therefore, in this case, CEO Lee Jae-myung must be acquitted somehow, and if not, the upcoming trial itself is too much for perjury teachers. In particular, remittances to North Korea can be sentenced to five years in prison. That's why you have to defend yourself well, otherwise it can be a hard time.

[Anchor]
I talked about Lee Jae-myung, who faced the second judicial crisis. This has been lawyer Kim Kwang-sam. Thank you for talking today.