[Issue Plus] Lee Jae-myung's "Perjury Teacher" decided today...Prosecutors sentenced to three years in prison.

■ Host: Lee Yeo-jin, anchor Jang Won-seok
■ Starring: Lawyer Lee Kyung-min

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

[Anchor]
A final trial was held today for Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was put on trial as a perjury teacher last year. The prosecution demanded a three-year prison term, saying, "Punishment corresponding to illegality and responsibility is necessary." Let's point out the prospect and impact of the trial with lawyer Lee Kyung-min. Welcome. The prosecution asked for a sentence of three years in prison after 11 months of indictment. Please introduce it.

[Lee Kyungmin]
The case should go up a little, but when he was a candidate for governor of Gyeonggi Province in 2018, he was framed for the prosecutor impersonation case at the election debate, and he was put on trial for violating the Public Official Election Act on charges of promulgating false information at the time. After being put on trial, he instructed the former Seongnam mayor's secretary to give perjury to this part during the trial. He was put on trial for this charge, and the trial was held for 12 months, so the prosecution asked for a three-year prison sentence.

[Anchor]
Today was the day of the prosecution's sentence, but according to the court's remarks last year, Lee's arrest warrant was dismissed and the charges of perjury teacher appeared to be cleared, but many people are also interested in how the ruling will come out this time. Anyway, should the prosecution be considered confident that they have made such a request for this?

[Lee Kyungmin]
That's right. The fact that the charges appear to be an explanation is to judge whether or not to detain the recruits at the warrant hearing stage. So at that time, it is not common for a warrant judge to express his or her feelings at this stage because it was before the trial proceeded. Nevertheless, the reason why he judged that the charges were cleared against the perjury teacher was that even when he saw the limited records now, he said that the charges seemed to be cleared because he thought that it could be punished as a perjury teacher and that it could be sentenced. From the prosecution's point of view, the judge in charge of the warrant also expressed that position, so I think he could fully prove the charges during the trial process. So those parts were also the basis, and above all, in the case of perjury, teacher offenders are viewed as an aggravating factor in aggravated punishment. So, considering those parts, he asked for a three-year prison term slightly higher than the usual basic sentencing factors.

[Anchor]
As you said, asking for a three-year prison term has a lot of weighting factors, can it be read like this?

[Lee Kyungmin]
That's right. Basically, a year and a half in prison are regarded as the basic sentencing factors, so the sentence is usually sentenced within this range, but the fact that a three-year prison term outside this range is that in perjury cases, the teacher's crime is not good in this area of obstruction or confusion in the judicial order.

That's why I got a higher spherical shape. In the case of representative Lee Jae-myung, there are many parts that affect the right to vote, so there are many parts that affect voters' choices, so we have to consider the impact, so it can be considered that the prosecution asked for it because the nature of the crime is a little worse.

[Anchor]
Last year, when the court rejected the arrest warrant for Lee Jae-myung, does this affect the ruling?

[Lee Kyungmin]
I don't think it's completely unaffected. Because when the court looks again, even if this court is in charge of the actual examination of the warrant, the primary opinion of the court is also correct. So, even when other courts judge that part, of course, it is the position of the same court, so that part cannot be affected. So, the judge's judgment in charge of the warrant does not necessarily connect it, but according to the evidence, the judges saw that the charges were clarified to some extent according to the principle of free evaluation, so there is a lot of room for the charges to be clarified when they go into the actual trial and investigate the evidence a little more, and for now, it seems that the judge's opinion in charge of the warrant can be fully considered from the perspective of the court, although it is still before the sentence.

[Anchor]
Considering the progress of the trial, people usually expect it to be the end of next month or early November. What do you think?

[Lee Kyungmin]
Usually, the sentence is sentenced after about a month, but it can take up to a month and a half if it goes through a little more process of hearing and review. So I think it will be as early as the end of October, and if it is delayed a little, it can be extended until November.

[Anchor]
The prosecution compared the claim that representative Lee Jae-myung was just saying what he was saying, as if he was telling the answer before taking the test. What do you think will happen to the issue?

[Lee Kyungmin]
First of all, perjury is important whether the witness made a statement according to his or her memory, regardless of the truth. So if you say that you made a statement against your own memory and that you had an influence on it, you're charged with this. Therefore, in the case of representative Lee Jae-myung, he said, "Please make a statement according to your memory," and the entire contents were played in the transcript. In the process, whether Lee Jae-myung's remarks could have had an impact, whether he really said so to make a statement according to his memory, and whether those remarks could really have an influence on those parts, the judge would naturally lead to guilt. If you think it was just a simple content that asked you to make a statement according to your memory, then it's not the part that this perjury influenced just by that content. So, I think we will review a lot about the contents of the remarks and whether those parts were really influential.

[Anchor]
CEO Lee Jae-myung, during his attendance at the final hearing today, said, "Isn't this a fabrication of the case?" It's like saying, "I'm not Japanese." Except for "I'm not Japanese," do you think this metaphor was appropriate?

[Lee Kyungmin]
First of all, CEO Lee Jae-myung has a bad feeling about the prosecution as the bad relationship with the prosecution continues, and I think he talked about his thoughts before the sentence was made. First of all, it is necessary to see whether it is an appropriate metaphor or not until the outcome of the sentence later, but I think I expressed my position in this trial because I could not rule out some bad emotions about the prosecution.

[Anchor]
The prosecution demanded a 10-month prison term for Kim Jin-sung, who received a phone call asking Lee Jae-myung to speak and testify in court. What level do you see this?

[Lee Kyungmin]
In a way, as I said earlier, this part basically enters the sentencing factor between June and June of a year, so there is no such part as over-sentencing in this part. It's a general level, but anyway, he admits his charges. Therefore, it will be a lot of consideration in the sentence in this part. There seems to be an element that can be reduced in terms of sentence. However, in the case of Representative Lee Jae-myung, it is a question of whether he taught apart from admitting the charges, so in the case of Kim Jin-sung, who is said to have given perjury anyway, the sentence was a little basic in terms of the part he was sentenced to, and the sentence to be finalized is expected to be reduced a little.

[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung has now made a final trial on two of the four trials and is about to be sentenced in the first trial. If the prosecution is fined more than 1 million won for violating the Public Official Election Act, which the prosecution demanded two years in prison on the 20th, won't it be deprived of its right to run for election for the next five years and lose its position as a member of the National Assembly? What about today's perjury teacher charges?

[Lee Kyungmin]
In the case of perjury teachers, when a sentence of imprisonment or higher is sentenced, the right to run for election cannot be maintained anyway during the period when the sentence is not in effect. That's why the sentence is set to expire for five years. That's why the law stipulates that there is no right to run for five years. In the case of the Public Official Election Act, the election has a huge impact on voters, so if it is confirmed with a fine of more than 1 million won, it will deprive them of their right to run for election. The perjury teacher is a crime under the general criminal law, but anyway, it is also a sentence of imprisonment or higher, for example, even if it is sentenced to probation. Therefore, when the sentence is sentenced, the right to run for election will be deprived for five years, but both of these crimes must be confirmed.

Until it is confirmed, if you appeal to the second trial and appeal from there, you will go to the Supreme Court. So, whether the results of the Supreme Court will come out before the presidential election, that part is unknown, but anyway, if such a sentence is sentenced in the first trial, it can be judged that there is a judicial risk, so I think I'm paying attention to the results of the first trial.

[Anchor]
What is the difference between imprisonment and imprisonment here?

[Lee Kyung-min]
Both are freeforms. It's a kind of sentence that deprives you of freedom, but in the case of imprisonment, you can think of it as being in a detention center, a detention center, or a prison and working. In the case of the safe type, the freestyle was deprived, but they don't work separately. So I think there is a difference in whether or not you work.

[Anchor]
Originally, it was stipulated that the sentence of the election criminal trial must be six months after the first trial is filed, the second trial and the third trial must be completed within three months, respectively, so within a year, but isn't this actually a dead letter?

[Lee Kyungmin]
That's right. In any case, in the case of election offenders, if they do not sentence them quickly, they continue to carry out their activities while maintaining their position, so they are asking them to take care of them quickly, but in the case of representative Lee Jae-myung, it has exceeded this period too much. Even after the indictment, it took a year to go to trial, so it seems to be a bit of a dead culture, and anyway, there were many issues, but for now, I think that part needs to be kept in the future.

[Anchor]
Let's predict how much the first trial sentence will come out.

[Lee Kyungmin]
I'm cautious, but in the case of CEO Lee Jae-myung, first of all, there are transcripts of perjury teachers. And since there is a regular offender who is said to have perjured himself, if these parts are reviewed together, in fact, it will not be that difficult to determine whether there is a suspicion in that part. So, the evidence seems clear in that part, but in the case of the Public Election Act, it seems important whether Lee Jae-myung had such intention or whether he had such intention to disclose false information, so we need to wait and see because those parts will be judged according to the judge's free evaluation through related evidence.

[Anchor]
We will also cover and tell you what Chairman Lee Jae-myung said after the trial. Let's move on to the next topic. This was also a court ruling that drew a lot of attention today. There was a first trial sentence for Lee Im-jae, former chief of Yongsan Police Station, and Park Hee-young, head of Yongsan-gu District Office in Seoul, who were indicted on charges of poor response to the Itaewon disaster. Lee Im-jae, former chief of Yongsan Police Station, was sentenced to three years in prison, so please explain the reason for the sentence.

[Lee Kyungmin]
First of all, this is important whether the crime itself was a crime of professional negligence and injury, and at that time, there was a duty of care to predict such disasters and prevent such parts. Therefore, the court now believes that former Yongsan Chief Lee Im-jae has such a duty of care in relation to the Itaewon disaster. Specifically, we had a duty of care in advance to prevent such damage to life and body from occurring at the time, and then we should have taken preventive measures, but we failed to do this properly even though we had such a duty of care. That's why the conviction was made, and accordingly, he was sentenced to imprisonment and three years in prison.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, all officials from the district office, including Yongsan-gu Mayor Park Hee-young, were acquitted today. Is there a reason why the ruling was so different when it was the same court?

[Lee Kyungmin]
First of all, I think there is a difference between administrative agencies and security agencies. When the judgment was made, there should be such an authorization rule that imposes such a specific duty of care from the perspective of the administrative agency, but in the case of Yongsan-gu District Office, there was no such authorization rule for the head of the district office. Since there was no regulation itself that imposes specific duty of care, it was difficult to admit the predictability of those parts, so it can be considered that the head of Yongsan-gu is now acquitted. The results have changed due to differences between administrative and security agencies, but for now, it is only a first trial sentence, so we need to consider whether the sentence will be maintained or whether it can be maintained at the appeal trial.

[Anchor]
The police explained that they thought they could have predicted the danger, but was that the only reason why Yongsan-gu District Office officials had no such obligation?

[Lee Kyungmin]
That's right. I think that part will be a little big. It is important to have a duty of care when it comes to business negligence. However, the duty of care was specifically expected in this institution, and if we were able to expect it, of course, if it is insufficient for that part, it is subject to criminal punishment. However, in the case of administrative agencies, there is a possibility that we can expect this only when there is a specific regulation that imposes such a duty of care. The first trial court now believes that the administrative agency lacked such a specific duty of care, so it was difficult to hold accountability in these areas because it was difficult to see that there was a specific standard to demand such a duty of care.

[Anchor]
Earlier, the prosecution demanded seven years in prison for both former police chief Lee Lim-jae and Yongsan-gu chief Park Hee-young, but with this ruling, the possibility of the prosecution appealing increased, didn't it?

[Lee Kyungmin]
Usually, if you are acquitted in the first trial, you can think of it as an appeal within the prosecution. And in this regard, the first trial court has raised the issue of the authorization rule, but I think the prosecution will probably review the contents of this ruling. So, I think we will decide whether to appeal within 7 days, but I'm cautious, but this is a big case, and there is a good chance that the prosecution will be judged again through an appeal on whether it is right to share responsibility like this due to the existence of authorization regulations.

[Anchor]
What did the court say about the allegation that Mayor Park tried to falsely write or distribute the press release?

[Lee Kyungmin]
First of all, it was judged not guilty of exercising false official documents and official documents. As for that part, it seems that there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegation, so he sentenced the entire part to acquittal.

[Anchor]
Now, there are four cases of professional manslaughter of three Seoul Metropolitan Government officials, including former Seoul Mayor Kim Kwang-ho, regarding the remaining first trial, and will today's judgment affect the ruling on former Seoul Mayor Kim Kwang-ho?

[Lee Kyungmin]
Since it's the same security agency, it can be expected that it will have some impact. However, the justice department will decide how much responsibility the police chief will be given and how much duty of care will be imposed, so I think I will first refer to the contents of this ruling, and if I judge that the police chief is responsible for this, I think that will have a sufficient impact on the judgment.

[Anchor]
Let's move on to the next one. There was also a prosecution sentence regarding Kim Ho-joong. Three and a half years in prison. We agreed. And the victim's taxi driver also said he didn't want to be punished, but I don't think that meant much.

[Lee Kyungmin]
First of all, when it comes to the old sentence, it is difficult to see it like this that the agreement is immediately reflected. There are cases in which the sentence is reflected, but in this case, the case itself was too systematic a obstruction of justice, focusing on this part and the prosecution asked for it, so I'm cautious at first, but the reflection of the victim's petition and the agreement has not yet been reflected in the sentence. Instead, it seems that the sentence will be reflected in this part of the sentence.

Anyway, from the prosecution's point of view, the symbolic meaning is that these people systematically joined together to obstruct justice, and these parts caused public resentment, so they decided that they were a little serious and asked for three years and six months in prison.

[Anchor]
Didn't the bail interrogation also proceed at the final trial today? When will this be judged?

[Lee Kyungmin]
As for jewelry, the results may come out as early as the day. Or, there are cases where it comes out over several days, and exceptionally, when the first trial results come out, they are notified then. So, just because you applied for bail now, it doesn't mean you have to decide whether to be released immediately or dismiss it. If the court decides that it is still necessary to have a period of arrest, considering the defendant's condition, it will remain in custody until the first trial results come out.

However, Kim Ho-joong is saying that his legs are uncomfortable, so if the court judges that such parts need treatment and supervision and even wrote an agreement that the victim does not want punishment, it may be possible to cite bail even before the results of the first trial come out, so we will have to take some time to see what the results will be.

[Anchor]
It is said that he came out on crutches today. The court has set today's sentence for the first trial for November 13. Kim Ho-joong also submitted a letter of apology and said in his final statement that he would try not to repeat the same mistake rather than doing well 10 times, and that he would wake up and live upright, to what extent does this affect the court?

[Lee Kyungmin]
It is true that you attend the trial in a different way from what you did at the investigative agency. In the trial, all of the prosecution was acknowledged, and above all, a letter of apology was submitted, and the petition that the victim did not want punishment could serve as an advantageous sentencing factor, so I think the court will consider that as a factor that can be commuted. However, whether it will be released with probation or imprisonment, but whether it will be a short-term sentence is important, so we will have to wait and see the results.

[Anchor]
The new information was revealed a little while ago. Let's also talk about the suspected murder of a female teenager in Suncheon. It was released as 30-year-old Park Dae-sung, and I saw the footage of him running away with a barefoot smile on CCTV, and I got goosebumps.

[Lee Kyungmin]
In fact, it is difficult to find the motive of the crime, of course, the motive of the crime itself, but it is a relationship with a victim who has no idea about the crime, so this is really seen as one of the crimes. Even after that, he followed him and smiled after doing this, so I have to admit it because there was evidence that I didn't understand whether this was really something that I could do as a human being, and what I said during the warrant review. Considering that he expressed his position on this matter, he would usually say sorry to the victim and sorry to the bereaved family after leaving everything else, but without saying anything like that, he should admit it because the evidence came out. Considering that he went in this position, it's really a heinous crime and it's really questionable whether he is reflecting on himself. That's why it seems to have influenced the decision in the disclosure of personal information.

[Anchor]
By the way, does this affect the accused mentally if the personal information is disclosed or not? What do you think?

[Lee Kyungmin]
Since this case is such a heinous case, it is actually questionable whether these parts will affect the disclosure of personal information. Because mentally, this person may be a psychopath, and in such a situation, even if the personal information is disclosed like this, it is judged that it is a part that can be seen as if he is showing off because he committed a cruel crime. In any case, these are necessary in terms of the people's right to know, and if anyone other than this suspect deliberately or accidentally thinks about the crime in a similar case, it seems to be meaningful to prevent recidivism when the personal information is disclosed. Anyway, I don't know if you will reflect on the disclosure of the personal information, but it seems that the decision to disclose the personal information was made in terms of the people's right to know.

[Anchor]
We got a picture of 30-year-old Park Dae-sung and are showing it to you right now. It's a so-called mugshot. Park Dae-sung, as mentioned earlier, I admit to the crime because the evidence has been found, we will see what the intention is later, but he said he can't remember because he drank, and he can't remember because he drank 4 bottles of soju. In view of the recent trend of court rulings, do you acknowledge these drunken sentences and mental and physical weaknesses well?

[Lee Kyungmin]
These days, I don't think it's an atmosphere that recognizes drunkenness. In the past, mental and physical weakness was recognized in those areas, but now the fact that he committed such crimes after drinking alcohol can be seen as facilitating such crimes because he actually drank alcohol, so the court does not actually use such claims as an element of mental and physical weakness. However, if there is a serious mental illness and a judgment corresponding to such a mental and physical weakness is made through the opinion of a specialist, such a mental and physical weakness can be acknowledged, but in the current trend, drinking a lot does not mean a reduction in mental and physical weakness.

[Anchor]
By the way, does it make sense to remember that you drank 4 bottles of soju now and don't remember killing someone after that?

[Lee Kyungmin]
That's right. The part that he drank a lot of alcohol selectively seems to be advantageous, so he is making a statement and pretending to have no memory of his or her subsequent actions. In some ways, he might have been commuted when he talked about these things before he committed the crime. This is also a questionable part, so the court will judge him for this behavior, but it seems that severe punishment is necessary considering even these statements when it comes to the poor nature of the crime.

[Anchor]
In addition, many people are angry because the victim was an aspiring police officer who recently passed the GED and wanted to become a police officer, and was reported to have suffered such a tragedy while going out to buy his sick father's medicine. Perhaps that's why there seems to be a lot of terrorist attacks around Park Dae-sung's restaurant, so shouldn't we be as careful as we can face legal punishment in this case?

[Lee Kyungmin]
That's right. Just because we're criminals, it's not possible to do something against us. These are called private sanctions, and in fact, those are the crimes of damage under the criminal law or the dissemination of personal information can be defamatory. But I think I should think about this, too. The reason why we impose such private sanctions is that there have been some areas where the sentence was not met when the results came out through investigative agencies and through the judiciary.

Since there are many parts such as why this is the only punishment for committing such a serious crime, it seems that there were complaints like this because the suspicion was not resolved from the public's point of view and maybe there was something else. As a result, it seems that they have moved on to private sanctions, but if this behavior is about to disappear, such private sanctions will be eliminated only when the public's perception changes, whether it is a judiciary or an investigative agency, can receive such punishment. So, I think it is necessary to make such efforts to improve those areas through strict judgment.

[Anchor]
I see. It was lawyer Lee Kyung-min for Issue Plus's help. Thank you.