Jang Sung-cheol said, "Are perjury offenders guilty and perjury teachers not guilty? Explanation required"

◆ [YTN Radio SHINYUL's news]
■ Broadcasting: FM 94.5 (17:00-19:00)
■ Air date: November 25, 2024 (Monday)
■ Proceedings: Shin Yul, Professor of Political Science and Diplomacy at Myongji University
■ Dialogue: Jang Sung-chul, Director of Public Opinion Center, Kim Min-ha, Current Affairs Critic

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information.

Jang Sung-cheol
- Are perjury offenders guilty and perjury teachers not guilty? Explanation is needed
- Lee Jae-myung, who only crossed two of the 15 hurdles
- Lee Jae-myung judicial risk, who will continue to ride rollercoaster
- The ruling and opposition parties should 'adopt' the judicial judgment according to the 'benefit and disadvantage'

Kim Min-ha
- The court saw that the reason for perjury of Kim Jin-sung was not 'Lee Jae-myung'
- The prosecution failed to prove the logic that Lee Jae-myung was a perjury teacher
- Lee Jae-myung is not guilty in the first trial... Minju, 'Ilhee and Ilbi' - I hope the Democratic Party will focus on people's livelihoods rather than on representative judicial issues.

◆ Shin Yul: Today, we're going to continue from part one and part two to political Kim & Chang. There are two people here right now. Let's introduce them one by one. First, Jang Sung-chul, director of the Public Opinion Center, is here. Hello.

□ Jang Seong-cheol: Yes, hello.

◆ Shin Yul: And Kim Min-ha, a current affairs critic. Please come in.

◆ Kim Min-ha: Hello.

◆ Shin Yul: Did you expect the warden to be innocent?

□ Jang Sung-chul: I met a person from the Democratic Party yesterday, and he said like a joke, "Isn't he going to be innocent?"

◆ While drinking soju? That's why I thought I was very drunk.

□ Jang Seong-cheol: No. When he wasn't even drinking a cup, he said that the Democratic Party member was innocent. So I said something weird. I said that. So many legal experts will come out between six months and a year and a half based on the sentencing criteria. In particular, I expected that the power of the people would be sentenced to about a year in prison, but now that I am innocent, I think our ancestors' dictum is wrong. So everything is up to the mind of a taffy, but I think it's up to the judge.

◆ Shin Yul: Critic Kim Minha?

◆ Kim Min-ha: I'm going back and forth, and I'm going to meet people on the people's side and people on the Democratic Party's side, so what do you expect? If you ask me this question, you say, "Of course, you'll be innocent," as Director Jang Sung-chul said, but after that, I want to drink. He said this. The one on the Democratic side. So, I don't think I expected it optimistically. People in the Democratic Party actually said that until this morning. Someone left the schedule empty and I put everything down. So now that I've been thinking a lot of pessimism, I think it was an unexpected decision, and these critics keep saying this, but it came out regarding the trial of violation of the election law. I think the justice department will not take it seriously, and I thought that a judgment would be quite unfavorable to Representative Lee Jae-myung regarding this perjury teacher, but as you said, isn't there a completely opposite conclusion? However, since the opposite conclusion came out contrary to what was expected, it makes me think that the conclusion of both rulings could change again at the appeal trial. Therefore, this ruling alone is not a phase in which everything can be prematurely concluded and thought about. Also, I think both parties should think that way. Rather than risking everything to judge every political situation on this ruling, it is necessary not to overreact and move forward with accurate plans with their own plans. That's what I think.

□ Jang Sung-chul: I want you to explain these parts later in the court or court. Kim Jin-sung, a perjury criminal, was fined 5 million won. It means that you've perjured yourself to some extent.

◆ Synthesis:
of 4
□ Jang Seong-cheol: It means that there are four perjury. Then, Kim Jin-sung took care of the perjury, and Kim Jin-sung didn't answer about what the real benefits of perjury would be. You can't answer. I'm not sure about that. It's like this. So even if you read the summary of the ruling this time, there is no answer to that. That's why I don't understand. So, I think that the court needs some explanation and explanation for this part.
◆ Kim Min-ha: To supplement that a little bit, shouldn't the judge judge judge the prosecution's explanation of the fact that the prosecution is a trial and that the crime is a crime? Didn't the prosecution explain that the reason for Kim Jin-sung's perjury was Lee Jae-myung's order? However, the court will have to read all the rulings now to know, but what the court judged was that Kim Jin-sung gave perjury. Because other explanations were made in the past, but in this trial, another explanation was made, so he judged that this was perjury, but he explained that the reason was not Lee Jae-myung's teacher. If so, the content of the current ruling is that the prosecution must prove why Kim Jin-sung perjured for what reason, and in this trial, the prosecution failed to prove it. That's why there's an appeals court, right?

◆ Shin Yul: He doesn't let the MC talk.

◆ Kim Min-ha: If you tell me after you finish talking,

◆ Shin Yul: I have a question.

◆ Kim Min-ha: So I have to ask you a question after I finish talking so I can tell you now. That's why in the appeal trial, the prosecution reinforced the logic on that part and supplemented those things about why CEO Lee Jae-myung's teaching logic should go into it, and now if we don't supplement this prosecution, questions about this part will inevitably grow.

◆ Shin Yul: No, but what I was trying to ask is that the prosecution ordered it. Isn't it that this person made you do it? So, the prosecution didn't give perjury even though this person didn't give perjury, so isn't there any reason for the prosecution to investigate why?

◆ Kim Min-ha: So, didn't the prosecution set the premise of the prosecution's investigation like this? It was done by CEO Lee Jae-myung. However, the court's judgment is that looking at the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it cannot reach a conclusion that Lee Jae-myung has ordered it. Then it's not what the prosecution should do. It is clear that CEO Lee Jae-myung ordered it. You have to reinforce this more or make the logic more solid. If that's not the case, the prosecution should investigate Kim Jin-sung's perjury charges with different contents, prosecute him separately, or do one of the two, but there is no way to do the latter. That's why there's an appeals court. I'm telling you this now. Now

□ Jang Sung-chul: And the other thing that's curious about is this. Rep. Kim Yong-min now usually sends a summary of the argument to the defendant to the subject of a key witness. He said,

◆ Sin-ryul: I don't say that it's normal, but in some cases, it can be passed. In some cases, in order to testify about something you don't know, this person has to keep his memory alive, so he can send it. That's what they're saying.

□ Jang Sung-chul: So now judges have just asked for testimony normally and sent the summary of their arguments normally. That's how it was written in the main sentence of the ruling. Is that right? It is common not to send a summary of the argument because it seems to be misunderstood and it is possible to be accused of perjury, but I wonder if it is correct to explain it as normal, and why did you send it to Telegram if you think that you are not suspected of many crimes? Usually, Telegram sends things such as security requests or things that are good if they are not revealed. But I also think that's common sense.

◆ Shin-yul: What I asked Kim Yong-min earlier was who said it because lawyer Kim Kwang-sam appeared on another program earlier, and it's not common for him to send this as a summary of his argument, but I asked lawmaker Kim Yong-min about this. What we're going to talk about is how we're going to turn from now on. Will it be stronger? Offensive rental?

◆ Kim Min-ha: As Rep. Kim Yong-min said earlier, the Democratic Party of Korea should take this opportunity to raise the rental offensive and such things, and shouldn't President Yoon Suk Yeol apologize for the prosecution's overinvestigation of unfair prosecution? While talking about that, haven't the judicial risks of representative Lee Jae-myung been highlighted by the previous ruling on violation of the election law? So I'm going to try to neutralize this context a little bit. But as I said before, if I bet too much on this ruling, I think it's a ruling that can be overturned in the appeal trial as much as I said before. If that happens, wouldn't it be a situation where my fate will be caught again in a situation where it is overturned again because there were too many things caught here when something came out of the appeals court? So put everything on the decision itself. Rather than saying, "Isn't the first trial not guilty?" I think it's enough to respect the judiciary's ruling and respond to the judiciary's ruling with a separate standard of judgment, but the rest will be centered on the party and go unshakable as it has done so far. So I think it's right to respond that much.

□ Jang Seong-cheol: This is the right thing to do. Well,

◆ Synonym: Sounds like an idiom.

□ Jang Sung-cheol: As the Democratic Party of Korea united as the representative of Lee Jae-myung, I would like to say that the voice of our representative Lee Jae-myung must be strengthened by the unfair political retaliation of the Yoon Suk Yeol regime. The rental offensive will have to be strengthened. So, I think the outdoor rally in Gwanghwamun and Seoul Station, which was a little delayed, will be more encouraged, so we can deal with the bill on the 28th of the first lady, Kim Gun-hee. I think the handling of it and the criticism of various problems with the Yoon Suk Yeol regime will be strengthened and strengthened.

◆ Sin-ryul: But if that's how we assume that we're one family, but this verdict is guilty, I think it's going to be strong, but I don't get that power. It's strong, but it's hard to gain strength.

□ Jang Seong-cheol: In the end, isn't such a rental offensive trying to defend representative Lee Jae-myung? In the end, the outdoor rally is trying to express a strong will to protect representative Lee Jae-myung through taxation rather than pointing out the problems with the Yoon Suk Yeol regime. But now, I've relieved the burden of that, but if you expect about five trials now, there are 15 hurdles if you do three, but you've crossed two hurdles. It's shown that there are about 13 hurdles left in the future. In this week's case, Kim In-seop's trial, Kim Yong, and the former lieutenant governor Lee Hwa-young's trial on the 28th and the 29th are like this. Both are appellate trials. All three are appeals, but if they are convicted again, the risk of Lee Jae-myung's judicial trial has increased. I think I'm going to keep riding a roller coaster. About Representative Lee Jae-myung all week

◆ Shin Yul: There are a lot of other trials left. Come to think of it, you don't know where it's going to go yet, right?

◆ Kim Min-ha: That's right. That's why, from the perspective of the Democratic Party of Korea, Lee Jae-myung needs to receive so many trials, such as various prosecutors' impure intentions, the government's political oppression, and they're actually saying that they want to highlight those contexts.
◆ Shin Yul: Representative Kim Yong-min also mentioned it.

◆ Kim Min-ha: That's right, but the more we talk about it, the more we can't help but pay attention to the trial schedule, representative Lee Jae-myung, who is under investigation by the prosecution, and various things that arise in the process, right? And the Democratic Party of Korea has no choice but to become like a party that puts everything on the line in the trial of Chairman Lee Jae-myung, right? That's why I'm telling you again, instead of continuing to focus on the party's power and actually protecting Chairman Lee Jae-myung, the judges who make these rulings are bad and the prosecutors are bad, Rep. Kim Yong-min said something like that earlier, but instead of focusing on people's livelihoods, raising issues about suspicions that President Yoon Suk Yeol has not answered, and raising questions about the special prosecution, and how can there be some parts in the ruling party that think a special prosecution is needed? It is better to focus on these practical concerns on how to get such people's cooperation and how to create a political situation that is not burdensome for them to cooperate well. In other words, it is necessary to make efforts to marginalize this variable itself, which is strategically marginalized from the perspective of the Democratic Party of Korea. That's what we need to think about.

□ Jang Sung-chul: After seeing the first trial recently, I think the power of the Democratic Party or the people is actually kind of funny. Regarding the political law, it is a judicial murder because you are guilty of it. The justice department of the Seoul National University Law School came out. It was attacked like this, but now the justice of the judiciary is really alive. It's a must-have. That's really the right judgment. Like this, he raises the judiciary again. I don't think it's good to look like this. So, even if a decision is made in my favor or a sentence against me, I hope the judgment of the court will be respected. That's what I think. I don't like this ruling even in the case of the power of the people, but I respect the trial. We showed this kind of lukewarm response. And then, in some media, there were some articles saying, "Who is this judge from Honam?" Then, he was from the progressive camp, and he was from the activist group. I don't want you to see me attacking individual judges like that. Korea is a country with the separation of legislative and judicial administration. So, I hope the prosecution will prepare well so that if you don't like the ruling based on the Constitution and legal conscience of the judiciary, you can be punished properly with an appeals court. I hope the legislature will not show it shaking the judiciary after praising it at times and swearing at it at other times.

◆ Sin-ryul: What you just said is the most important thing for me to see is that it keeps shaking the system.

□ Jang Sung-chul: I know.

◆ Sin-ryul: It's a very humorous element in supporting the entire Republic of Korea. First of all, you have to respect the system and trust it. If you like it, you give it a position, but if you don't like it, you do this again, so this is not what a public party looks like. So, I hope both parties don't make other evaluations at that time. Anyway, there was a saying that the passport waited a long time today. In the past, when this came out today, Jung Kook took the lead. Didn't he get very confused?

◆ Kim Min-ha: In the last election law violation, the ruling party came forward first, representative Han Dong-hoon, and then lawmaker Joo Jin-woo, especially former prosecutors, will definitely face prison terms. We need to start with a live stream of the trial. Since we've been talking about things like that, didn't we create another condition where we can only evaluate that the people's power is linked to the election of Chairman Lee Jae-myung and some considerable strategic parts of the party? Since the last election law violation trial was seen as a result that the people's power almost wanted, other Democratic Party supporters say, "Isn't this evidence that the government and the judiciary are just getting together?" There are definitely some things like that. On the contrary, this time, it becomes an atmosphere where the ruling as expected from the power of the people has not come out, and as the supporters of the power of the people have just said, who is this judge? So, from the ruling party's point of view, Lee Jae-myung, who seems to link a strategy that seems to put everything on this trial, has created such conditions as if he must not be guilty, so in fact, some social integration, some parts of the separation of legislative and judicial administration, and such effects that could be problematic, right? Then, it was clearly a bad choice to take this country as a strategy that I mentioned just now in some sense that it fulfills the responsibility of the ruling party from the standpoint of governing well. I keep saying that I have to admit this, but the judiciary's judgment is based on the judgment, and in my opinion, CEO Han Dong-hoon is too much. When I talk about something like this, I keep trying to talk about it in conjunction with a certain part of CEO Lee Jae-myung. For example, CEO Lee Jae-myung is now making demands from companies regarding breach of trust, but we are a little nervous about breach of trust in companies. So, isn't it possible to take a policy criticism or approach to CEO Lee Jae-myung's suggestion to consider some kind of regulation related to breach of trust? Since when has the Democratic Party been so flexible on breach of trust or something like that? You can criticize like this, but CEO Han Dong-hoon talks like this. Representative Lee Jae-myung is suspected of breach of trust, and the Democratic Party of Korea wants to eliminate the breach of trust. Aren't you talking about your sins? That's how we approach it. So instead of approaching it this way, the judiciary should clearly show the ruling party focusing on this policy and things related to the people's livelihood by separating the law's problems as per the law. That's what I'm saying.

◆ Sin Yul: The screams in the Democratic Party, by the way, are a little flinch.

□ Jang Sung-chul: It's going to be overwhelming. I'm going to work in earnest and invite Prime Minister Kim Boo-kyum to give a lecture at the first meeting. Rep. Park Yong-jin will conduct full-fledged nationwide activities from January next year. I did that, but I don't think it's going to be easy. So, you have to unite as a single team to see if it's an internal shot, so you're likely to receive this finger-pointing from your supporters, and you've safely crossed the hurdle, which is the most dangerous anyway. Then, representative Lee Jae-myung or his relatives are quite innocent of the rest of the trial sentence. I'm innocent. Don't make other noises. There is a high possibility that they will strongly say that we should not have internal control. It seems that Choi Min-hee's rude talk could also come out, but the next leaders of the non-government candidates, who lack national recognition and support, are starting their activities in earnest even though the risk of representative Lee Jae-myung has decreased. It's highly likely that even the supporters won't clap. Shouldn't we wait and see for a while now? Shouldn't we strengthen the rental struggle now? You guys have said something about Han Dong-hoon, the Yoon Suk Yeol regime. Why do you keep tackling representative Lee Jae-myung and if there are such criticisms, it's not easy to politicize within the camp. So, first of all, while watching, I tell them to just use it as a step to build up their inner workings.

◆ Sin Yul: Well, go ahead.

◆ Kim Min-ha: First of all, we have no choice but to adjust the level. From the standpoint of the non-real world, the power does not have such a substantial power in the first place, and in fact, the ruling on the violation of the election law last time has become difficult for Lee Jae-myung, so I will come forward. I don't know if you had this in mind, but wasn't it difficult to say that openly? Therefore, it was a justification to say that the cause should protect representative Lee Jae-myung. From the standpoint of this screaming community, the ruling against Lee Jae-myung is a political ruling, including Gyeonggi Province Governor Kim Dong-yeon and former presidential chief of staff Lim Jong-seok. When I protected representative Lee Jae-myung from a certain prosecution regime, didn't I try to increase this volume first and then step forward and take a wide range of actions under the pretext that I was trying to protect representative Lee Jae-myung? However, with the acquittal in this first trial, the justification for moving to protect representative Lee Jae-myung has been slightly reduced. In that sense, we will adjust the completion rate, but as I said before, no one knows what the future trial will be like, or what the conclusion will be at the appeals court. Although we will adjust the completion rate for now, we will continue to try to move with the idea that we will need an alternative to Lee Jae-myung at some point, even if we are not prepared to make a conflict with Lee Jae-myung or his relatives from now on.

□ Jang Sung-chul: I want to say one more thing, but I think it's right for the Democratic Party of Korea lawmakers to gather and hug and cheer after Lee Jae-myung was sentenced and left in front of the court. So, this is not an independence movement, nor is it a democratization movement that is being suppressed by power. It's related to extremely personal allegations of corruption. It's not what you did when you were the leader of the Democratic Party. But I think how it will be seen by the people that they like it so much with this.

◆ Shin Yul: Okay. Let's reduce the order of the first part of Political Kim & Chang here. We'll continue with part two. I'll see you in a moment.