[News UP] Lee Jae-myung is charged with 'use of corporate credit card'..."Kim Hye-kyung is guilty." See logic.

■ Host: Anchor Cho Jin-hyuk
■ 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 News UP] when quoting.

[Anchor]
The number of trials that Lee Jae-myung, chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea, should receive has increased by one more, bringing the total to five. However, the prosecution was based on the first trial ruling in which Kim Hye-kyung, her spouse, was convicted. Let's find out more about it with lawyer Kim Kwang-sam, who was a prosecutor.The number of trials against the current party leader has increased by one more to five. Can you explain what you're charged with this time?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
This is the seventh indictment. There are five trials, because there are combined trials. The biggest feature of this case is the use of a corporate credit card. Another is an official car, which is purchased in Gyeonggi-do. If you buy it, you have to use it as an official car, but in Gyeonggi-do, it was made as a wife's team, so this car itself was used as Kim Hye-kyung's personal car. And after using the official car, you have to park in the parking lot of Gyeonggi-do, but to avoid this, the parking garage was decided near your house. And don't official cars have stickers for access to Lee Jae-myung's apartment in Sunae-dong, usually apartments? I drove with stickers on it. So, the amount of damage related to official cars is 60.16 million won. Then, 8.89 million won is useful as a corporate credit card. Then, fruits, sandwiches, and laundry fees are provided. The indictment says 27.91 million won for fruits, but I think the prosecution should take a closer look at the evidence or the indictment later to see how the price of fruits is high. He spent 106 million won on sandwiches and laundry. That's why the prosecution indicted him on this charge of causing damage to Gyeonggi-do.

[Anchor]
So it's a breach of duty, you can see it like this, but the spouse, Kim Hye-kyung, is on the same charge, but she has been suspended from prosecution. Why did you make that judgment?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
In general cases, if a couple is prosecuting, neither is prosecuted. except for a very serious crime In this case itself, the police initially said that they were prosecuting Kim Hye-kyung when they sent her, and that it was difficult to find evidence of involvement in representative Lee Jae-myung. But it changed. So Kim Hye-kyung was previously fined 1.5 million won for violating the Public Official Election Act. I think I took that into account. It is also too harsh to prosecute the two themselves because they are married. It is customary in the legal profession. Only representative Lee Jae-myung was indicted without detention, which can be seen like this. A public official related to him and another officer, identified only by his surname Bae, were indicted as accomplices together.

[Anchor]
However, the prosecution decided to indict Lee Jae-myung without a direct investigation. Can I consider it unusual to turn it over to trial without even a written investigation?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
In the past, when the police sent it to the prosecution, most of them were investigated by the prosecution. The reason is that the evidence ability of the police report and the evidence ability of the prosecution report were different. However, as the prosecution and police investigation rights were adjusted last time, the police and prosecution's records themselves became the same in terms of evidence ability. That's why the prosecution has often omitted to investigate once more. In addition, the prosecution often prosecutes the case without investigating if the case itself is likely to be clearly prosecuted and found guilty after the adjustment of the prosecution's investigation rights. However, the case itself was not originally intended to be investigated by the prosecution, but it is said that they have consulted with CEO Lee Jae-myung about three times since July to attend the prosecution.

But there was a national convention then. As a result, I couldn't attend because of the Democratic National Convention. He also sent it to Seo-myeon. I asked him to answer the letter, but representative Lee Jae-myung did not answer the citizen. First lady Kim Hye-kyung was also summoned to the prosecution. At that time, he refused to make a statement. Therefore, the prosecution no longer has anything to prove guilty by investigating, so it was immediately prosecuted without investigation.

[Anchor]
And as mentioned earlier, the prosecution reportedly indicted CEO Lee Jae-myung on charges of professional breach of trust this time, referring to the first trial ruling of his spouse, Kim Hye-kyung. What logic did you borrow specifically?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
Kim Hye-kyung was fined 1.5 million won for violating the Public Official Election Act last time. They provided 104,000 won worth of entertainment there. I was paying for the food. I used this as a company card in Gyeonggi-do. Therefore, 104,000 won spent on the Gyeonggi-do corporate card is also included in the indictment. But the most important point about Beopka was whether Kim Hye-kyung knew or not. However, in the last ruling on violation of the Public Official Election Act, there was an acquiescence to whether Bae would be Kim Hye-kyung's acceptance. So, because it was recognized as an accomplice, this itself was intended not to commit the crime alone. As a result, it can be seen that the prosecution took into account the judgment itself in prosecuting corporate cars.

[Anchor]
However, the Democratic Party of Korea says that it is forced to claim that Chairman Lee Jae-myung could not have known even though he did not use the corporate card himself. What is the prosecution's position on this?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
That's what prosecutors do. Isn't the corporate credit card itself a corporate credit card in Gyeonggi-do? Then doesn't that mean you can buy laundry fees, fruits, and decontamination products through Bae and buy sandwiches and eat them? Then, the fact that you can use the company card itself is possible because of the permission of Lee Jae-myung, the governor of Gyeonggi-do Province. If there was nothing in the process, the prosecution said that Kim Hye-kyung could not use it at will. So, as the governor of Gyeonggi-do, the management of the corporate card, such things will be done by the staff below, but as a result, the person who can use the corporate card is Lee Jae-myung, the governor of Gyeonggi-do. Since they used it in the name of living expenses or something like that, if they use it together and eat food together, there is no way that CEO Lee Jae-myung doesn't know. So, even if there is insufficient evidence that representative Lee Jae-myung knew directly, the prosecution is arguing that there was acceptance or acquiescence of representative Lee Jae-myung according to various overall circumstances and direct or indirect evidence.

[Anchor]
Let's move on to the next case. This is also the second time that CEO Lee Jae-myung's first trial sentence comes out. It's the 25th. It's a perjury teacher charge. Last time, there was a prospect that a heavier sentence could be given than a violation of the election law, what do you think?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
There's no penalty for perjury teachers. There's a fine for violating the last election law. So, if you are guilty, there is a high possibility that you will be sentenced to prison. Then, the prosecution sentenced him to two years in prison for violating the election law last time. But he asked for three years in prison for perjury teachers. Then, it can be said that the perjury teacher is more serious than the violation of the Public Official Election Act. Another thing was a warrant request for Lee Jae-myung. At that time, the warrant was dismissed, and the warrant judge, who dismissed the warrant at that time, said that the perjury teacher charge seems to have been cleared, so I did it at that time. Of course, even if it was clarified at the warrant stage, what evidence did Representative Lee Jae-myung produce that could be impeached during the court trial? If he gave personal and material evidence, it could be considered that it was not actually explained. When it comes to trial in court, it must be proved one step higher than the calling. However, since the judge in charge of the warrant seemed to have been explained at that time, the conclusion may vary depending on how representative Lee Jae-myung submitted such evidence that could break this definitively.

[Anchor]
The key point of this case is that CEO Lee Jae-myung called Kim Jin-sung and demanded perjury as if injecting him, but the prosecution believes that the result of the case has actually changed because of this call. The representative denies the allegations. At the same time, he argues that this is also an area of subjective perception that he did not know Kim Moon-ki, but he was guilty in the same logic, in the first trial. What do you think of this logic this time?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
The most important thing is the contents of the transcript. Second, there are things like Telegram. The third is Kim Jin-sung's statement. However, if you look at the transcript itself, of course, as the Democratic Party of Korea or representative Lee Jae-myung claims, they ask you to state the truth as you remember it. Then, if you remember the truth, you can't be guilty of perjury because you ask them to tell you in a way that you can't remember, and if you don't, you can't tell them in a way that you can. If you look between them, it's in CG.Ma says he doesn't even remember after all these years, so I'll send you a summary of his argument, so he tells you to send it and bring it back to your memory, as if you were victimized by a conspiracy theory at the time. Then, from Kim Jin-sung's point of view, I don't remember, but do you mean to tell the truth by perjury or not? You have no choice but to have concerns about this. However, CEO Lee Jae-myung claims that he did not teach perjury because he told him to tell the truth. Didn't Kim Jin-sung confess that he perjured himself?

At the same time, if you look at the contents of the statement, that's what the prosecution claims. Why do we need to ask them to tell us what they remember? Even if they don't call us and don't send us an opinion on Telegram, they tell us the truth on their own, so why would the accused call and say that? That in itself is a request for perjury. This is the logic that the prosecution claims.

[Anchor]
I'd like to ask you because the lawyer must have a lot of experience in similar cases. Usually, when you say perjury teacher, what level of evidence do you get to admit the charges?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
First of all, it's different from case to case. I can't specify a case, but one of the most important things is to teach perjury. Then there's the person who got the teacher, the teacher. So if a person confesses just because he or she is asked to give perjury, in most cases, he or she is often guilty of perjury. So, Kim Jin-sung confesses to this case that I have perjured myself, so this in itself will act as a very unfavorable factor for CEO Lee Jae-myung.

[Anchor]
As I mentioned earlier, there are a total of five trials that representative Lee Jae-myung will receive. However, if you look at the period before the presidential election, there are less than two years left, so wouldn't all of these rulings have to go to the Supreme Court to conclude that they will be deprived of their right to run for election? Will the entire schedule be possible?

[Kim Kwang-sam]
There are 5 trials. However, at least the case of a suspended sentence in connection with the last violation of the Public Official Election Act will be sentenced on the 25th regarding perjury teachers. So if you're convicted, it's the same even if you're acquitted. The case itself is going to an appeal trial and it took more than two years in the first trial, so all the evidence presented by Lee Jae-myung or the prosecution was submitted. I'm only going to hear new evidence excluding that evidence at the appeal trial, or the incomplete part of the first trial. This trial can't last long. These two incidents themselves. One of the next important things is that the Supreme Court has been delayed in trials for too political cases, so didn't the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also talk at the hearing last time? I'm saying we have to hurry up and go. In the case of violations of the election law and related trials, it consists of six months in the first trial, three months in the appeals court, and three months in the Supreme Court. But this is a mandatory regulation, so judges have to abide by it, but it's not being done. Therefore, the Supreme Court is talking about keeping this, so the appeal trial will not take that long. Then, out of at least five trials, the violation of the Public Official Election Act, which was sentenced last time, and the perjury teacher case, which will be sentenced on the 25th, can be concluded by the Supreme Court at least next year.

[Anchor]
Now let's talk about the power of the people. Controversy is brewing over the party's bulletin board, and it is a suspicion that slanderous messages against Yoon Suk Yeol's president and his wife have been posted in the name of CEO Han Dong-hoon's family. Can you organize what happened specifically?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
It is said that the original name was anonymized under the name of Han Dong-hoon on the People's Power Bulletin Board. The first letter and the last letter are like this. There could be a lot of people with the same name. However, an article criticizing President Yoon was posted in the name of CEO Han Dong-hoon and his family members. But it turns out that it's not CEO Han Dong-hoon. Since CEO Han Dong-hoon has never joined. Eventually, it turned out to be the same name. Maybe it's pro-Yoon, but other conservative strong supporters posted slanderous messages under their family names, and they're telling them to reveal it. However, according to the current party law, the party is not allowed to disclose personal information itself to the outside. Then, you're supposed to be punished. Nevertheless, some say CEO Han Dong-hoon should express his position on this. CEO Han Dong-hoon said that. I left the chairman of the People's Power Law Committee to investigate this part, so I will take care of it. I think they're responding that much.

[Anchor]
A police investigation is also underway, so how long do you think it will take for this to come out?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
However, this case itself is probably not subject to criminal punishment by the police. It is said that there is slander or criticism, but it belongs to the realm of freedom of expression, and the content itself is not insulting, but rather criticism of the president, which can be said on the party's bulletin board. Moreover, I don't know well because it doesn't appear in the media in very detail, for example, I quoted a certain editorial there, and because it's about that, this itself wouldn't be a crime like defamation. Then, if the investigation is requested and the charges are filed, the police may investigate it, but there is a high possibility that it will be closed without investigating. Moreover, since this itself is related to the freedom of expression of party members, there is room for the Democratic Party to criticize those in power, such as the president. However, it seems that CEO Han Dong-hoon's family is trying to take issue with the inappropriateness of criticizing the president, regardless of whether it is punished by law or not within the power of the people. I don't think this is a case that will go to a criminal case.

[Anchor]
I see. We have looked at various issues of judicial risk in politics. I was with lawyer Kim Kwang-sam. Thank you.