Prosecutors protest against perjury "guilty" and teacher "not guilty"...There's going to be a fierce battle at the appeals court.

Prosecutors" Hard Results to Accept...Appeal"
The prosecution reacted furiously..."It's a perjury without gain.
" re-emerges and moves carefully until testimony is made."

[Anchor]
The prosecution is strongly opposed to the judgment of Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, not guilty in the first trial of the perjury teacher case.

Unusually, he immediately expressed his intention to appeal.

After the first trial ruling of the perjury teacher, we will connect the atmosphere and the legal team reporter to find out.

Reporter Kim Dahyun!

[Reporter]
Yes, it's the Seoul Central District Court.

[Anchor]

The prosecution has expressed its intention to appeal immediately.

What's the prosecution's internal reaction?

[Reporter]
The prosecution has convicted an accomplice who confesses to the crime, but said it is difficult to accept the acquittal of CEO Lee.

He said he would review the ruling, appeal it, and do his best to prove guilt.

There was also a furious reaction from within the prosecution organization.

CEO Lee is the one who benefits from this crime, but there was a response that Kim was the only one who perjured without any benefit.

In addition, representative Lee also stressed that the court should not look at the matter in pieces, saying that he moved closely until the testimony was actually made after the phone call.

As the prosecution announced the appeal, Lee's side is expected to engage in a fierce court battle again in the second round.

[Anchor]
It is difficult for the prosecution to accept the ruling that "the perjury is guilty, but the teacher is innocent."

Why did the court decide this?

[Reporter]
The court also admitted that Kim perjured after the phone call with CEO Lee.

However, I saw that CEO Lee had no 'intention' to teach perjury.

To put it simply, CEO Lee asked Kim to testify, but he may not have expected to perjury.

The court explained that there was no intention by looking at each sentence recorded on the phone between CEO Lee and Kim.

Representative Lee continued further discussions at least on matters not clearly denied by Mr. Kim,
It was determined that Mr. Kim asked for testimony only about what he could know.

Specifically, it did not explicitly request the 'consultation to drive Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit',

He asked me to tell him only about 'there was a communion between former Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS' or 'the overall flow'.

Therefore, the court also convicted Kim only of testifying about the "consultation of the principal offender."

[Anchor]
It turned out that Kim perjured himself for something that CEO Lee did not request.

The legal profession is divided on this ruling?

[Reporter]
Yes, first of all, there is an opinion that the prosecution's indictment itself is unreasonable and that the acquittal is natural.

As this perjury teacher case is a long-standing case from the prosecutor impersonation case in 2002, it would not have been easy for the prosecution to prove the charges in the first place.

On the other hand, there was also a response that it was not understood that those who asked for lies were innocent, but only those who took the punishment and accepted the request were guilty.

Some say that the first trial ruling also seeks to maintain the logic established by the court in the past.

Representative Lee was indicted on charges of making false statements about the prosecutor's impersonation case and was finally acquitted.

However, if the perjury teacher is convicted, there may be controversy because there is room for Lee's false statement that he was falsely accused.

[Anchor]
In the appeal trial, a fierce legal battle between representative Lee and the prosecution is expected.

What would be an issue in the appeal trial?

[Reporter]
The first trial court concluded that Kim voluntarily perjured for CEO Lee.

The prosecution is expected to focus on proving that CEO Lee's teaching behavior at the appeal trial was the beginning of perjury.

In addition, the first trial judged that there was no evidence that Representative Lee was directly involved in Kim's preparation of an affidavit after the call with Representative Lee and communicating with Representative Lee's lawyer.

The prosecution has to prove again that representative Lee participated in the process after the call.

On the other hand, CEO Lee is expected to emphasize again that he asked me to tell him "as it is."

So far, the Seoul Central District Court has informed you.