[New Square 10] Lee Jae-myung's 'violation of election law' was sentenced in the first trial...What's the issue that will determine fate?

■ Host: Anchor Park Seok-won
■ Starring: Lawyer Son Jeong-hye

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 10AM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
This afternoon, the results of the first trial of Lee Jae-myung, chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea, on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act will be released. As it is the first conclusion of the four criminal trials that CEO Lee receives, attention is being paid to the results. Let's point out legal issues with lawyer Son Jung-hye. Please come in. First of all, let's look at the first gateway to today's judicial risk, the remarks that are problematic because they are in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

[Son Jung-hye]
I think I can mention two major remarks. On October 20, 2021, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport not only gave an order to change the use of Baekhyun-dong's site, but also threatened to make it a problem as a dereliction of duty if not, which is stated as a false fact at the National Assembly Audit of the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee.

In December 2021, he appeared on a live news interview and responded to the question of whether he knew Kim Moon-ki personally, saying, "I didn't know Kim Moon-ki when I was mayor," and was indicted for publishing false information on the broadcast to draw a line with the suspicion of developing Daejang-dong.

[Anchor]
The first trial will be sentenced today, and there seem to be issues such as "Did you know, didn't you know, threatened or not?" What are the legal issues today, essentially?

[Son Jung-hye]
The most important criterion is yes. In our court case, the publication of false information is stipulated in the election law. Was it a false fact about a specific fact because it would be punished if it was recognized as a false fact and announced it? Or even if this is a false fact, I think the main issue will be whether Lee Jae-myung talked about it subjectively even though he knew it was false at the time.

Because of that, the main point of the first Lee Jae-myung's argument is subjective perception, but he claimed that it was the area of opinion, not the area of false facts without knowing people, or that he did not know this person personally at the time. Regarding the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the pressure and intimidation of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport are somewhat exaggerated, but they are pleading not guilty that there was a pressure administrative act to cooperate with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

[Anchor]
Representative Lee seems to have been confused because he answered in a compressed way. It was in September 2022 that representative Lee Jae-myung was indicted on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, but it took a little more than two years to get the results of the first trial. Why did it take so long?

[Son Jung-hye]
It can be said that there is a fierce interest in the right to run for election and the cost of the election, and the prosecutor and the defendant have been in a fierce legal battle for a long time. In the middle of the prosecution's change of indictment, there are some areas that have become a little fiercer, but the issue is also complicated.

There were a lot of witnesses themselves. It was also a case where there were more than 50 witnesses. In particular, there were cases where party leader Lee Jae-myung postponed the trial date due to the schedule of the National Assembly or the general election or various political activities, and there were some delays because he was confirmed to have COVID-19. In addition to these reasons for the delay, the party leader Lee Jae-myung had a fierce argument because there are so many fierce and legal arguments.

[Anchor]
It is important whether today's sentence is guilty or not guilty, but depending on the amount of the fine, political fate is at stake for 1 million won because it is at the crossroads of political fate. How does it differ depending on the amount of the fine?

[Son Jung-hye]
Even if the fine is more than 1 million won, it can be very important because it determines whether you can maintain your right to run or run for president depending on whether you are more than 1 million won or less. In particular, if more than 1 million won is confirmed, not only will he lose his parliamentary seat, but he will also have to return his election expenses. If the Democratic Party returns the election expenses, it will have to return 43.4 billion won. This is not only a problem for Lee Jae-myung, but also for the Democratic Party, and it has a great political ripple effect on the future presidential race and presidential candidate.

[Anchor]
It would be a trial and a fine for representative Lee Jae-myung, but what legal basis is there for the Democratic Party to say that the entire cost of the election should be returned?

[Son Jung-hye]
It is in the provisions of the Public Official Election Act. The Public Official Election Act requires the party to return some of the election costs, whether it is a presidential election or a general election, in terms of fairness, transparency, and false information so that public opinion is not distorted during the election process.

The reason for this measure is that freedom of debate and political expression of liberal democracy should be widely guaranteed during the election process, but if you actively deceive voters with false facts, this is a strict measure.

Cases of election law that are primarily problematic due to false disclosures often result in false disclosures of candidates' careers, assets, and educational backgrounds. In this case, there were quite a few cases of punishment under the Public Official Election Act, but can it be recognized as a publication of false facts for talking about arguments, opinions, or facts during the debate or on TV? Also, there are not that many cases, so it is that fierce and there is a possibility that this judgment will be very important. In the past, party leader Lee Jae-myung was acquitted by the Supreme Court in the first, second, and third trials of answering questions about his brother's admission to a mental hospital.

Also, the lower court and the Supreme Court were different in the judgment of guilt or innocence. Publication of false information, especially interviews responding to spontaneous questions, is a very important legal part of whether or not to publish false information, and judgment can vary from case to case, so it can be a very important judgment in a way. [Anchor] Also, Lee Jae-myung's spouse, Kim Hye-kyung, was fined 1.5 million won in the first trial yesterday. It won't affect you, but should we look at what happened to this part?

[Son Jung-hye]
That's the case with this part. Under the Public Official Election Act, the spouse of a candidate is also prohibited from donating. Because the money election should not take place, it was judged that the government finally donated by paying about 104,000 won for a meal to six people, despite the fact that they could not donate even a meal carelessly.

In the first trial, Kim Hye-kyung said, "I thought I was not involved and I would have made the payment separately, but I had no intention of making a donation." However, the court ruled that the secretary made the payment with Kim Hye-kyung's acquiescence and that it was natural to assume that she had accepted, approved, and knew that the donation was guilty, but fined 1.5 million won.

[Anchor]
The first trial of Lee Jae-myung's perjury teacher case is scheduled to be sentenced in 10 days, but there was also an opinion that the legal community should pay more attention to the perjury teacher case when considering the severity of the judgment of the court.

[Son Jung-hye]
In the same way, perjury teachers are deprived of their right to run for election even when they are sentenced to imprisonment including probation, not imprisonment. This could also be a trial that could greatly affect the presidential election. In particular, the sentencing standards are slightly higher if you commit perjury, which is defined as a judicial obstruction, or deceive the court.

So, since the basic sentencing standard is set from six months to one and a half years in prison, if you are guilty, you are very likely to get more than a prison term, so one judicial risk is on the verge of one step at a time.

[Anchor]
That's why some politicians say that November is the month of fate for the Democratic Party. Let's also look into the details of the perjury teacher case. These are the stories related to the impersonation of the prosecutor, right?

[Son Jung-hye]
The trial was conducted in connection with party leader Lee Jae-myung's remarks that he was framed in connection with the Gyeonggi governor's election debate in 2018, and the charges were also a crime of publicizing false information. Although he was acquitted in the third trial, he is accused of perjury to a person named Kim Jin-sung to send a summary of his argument, correct his statement, and testify as false as I wanted.

Regarding the trial in this case, there are several statements that Lee Jae-myung, the party leader, should make a statement as he remembers, but I have never taught false facts. While he is pleading to the effect of innocence, this person named Kim Jin-sung confessed and testified that Lee Jae-myung, the party leader, asked for perjury as a false fact at the time, so did he specifically instruct the court to testify as a false fact?

or did you say that it is the dimension of sharing some arguments or information like this, and that it is okay to testify according to the facts and to conform to the objective facts? Judgment of guilt or innocence is very important because judgment of objective truth must be made, and if you are guilty, you are very likely to choose a prison sentence.

[Anchor]
So, Mr. Kim, who was the secretary of the late former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang, said, "CEO Lee taught perjury to the person who told me his real name. I think I can sum up these things. I said that guilt or innocence is the most important thing, but based on the charges, how much can we judge that the sentence will come out?

[Son Jung-hye]
I can tell you that the basic sentence is between 6 months and 1 year and 6 months in prison. If you teach or influence your social status, the sentencing criteria may be higher. However, it may be reduced if it is a peripheral situation or if it is intentional.

In the prosecution's final trial, 95% of perjury teachers convicted in the past six years are imprisoned, and the probation of prison sentences comes out in a large percentage. As such, false testimony under oath and teaching false testimony are more likely to be sentenced to more than probation if they are found guilty.

[Anchor]
The trial will begin at 2:30 p.m. today, but aren't you worried about a large-scale demonstration in front of the court? How do the next procedures go after attending at 2:30?

[Son Jung-hye]
Usually, sentences are very short, but in such serious social concerns, and even serious cases that can affect the presidential election, I think it will take at least an hour for the court to verbally explain the basis for judgment on detailed facts and the gist of judgment.

In particular, since this case is very interested in both camps, the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul, is very tightening security to the extent that the court restricts the door and controls the vehicle. It is expected that a large crowd of people will make both arguments, so the court seems to consider this a lot. I hope there will be no safety accidents.

[Anchor]
In about four hours, representative Lee Jae-myung will appear at the Seocho-dong court and be tried. Finally, I talked about the two stories and remarks I received today on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act. I'll drop it separately and talk about it in detail.

First of all, the remarks came from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's parliamentary audit. There was pressure from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport regarding the repurposing of the Baekhyun-dong site, and there was a threat. Aren't you going to be tried for violating the Public Official Election Act today with a statement to this effect? Why don't we talk about this story with the prosecution's argument and the argument of representative Lee Jae-myung?

[Son Jung-hye]
The prosecution's argument is that. When you send an administrative act or official letter from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the administrative agency, you send a document. Even if all documents sent by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, related business reports, and business emails are checked, there are no threatening remarks. Rather, the prosecution argues that this part was deliberately distorted to reduce its misconduct because there was a request to deal with it at the discretion of the head of the local government.

Party leader Lee Jae-myung's argument is as follows. At that time, I only exaggerated the part of intimidation, but there were circumstances that were consistent with the important part. At that time, the central government tried to solve this problem, and there are re-use, orders from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and related official documents, so local governments can take it as pressure when the central government's plan comes down.

It may be a bit exaggerated to say that such pressure or official documents on important areas have been issued, but it is difficult to clearly recognize that it is false and say that it is not guilty. First of all, what kind of official document was issued by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport about the change of use at the time, and whether there is any factor that can be pressured by acting against the central government's plan and official document from the perspective of working as a real practitioner of the local government. I think those points will be the main issues.

[Anchor]
And the other thing is that the remarks made by the National Assembly Audit of the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee were in October 2021, and in December 2021, I didn't know the late Director Kim Moon-ki when I was mayor, isn't this the part? In a way, this is the part where the ruling party's offensive continues. About 10 people played golf together, and they were low-ranking employees, and they played golf with a small number of people. I think it's this kind of story.

[Son Jung-hye]
Therefore, the prosecutor's claim is that the nature of the crime is not good because he spread false information to the electors to the effect that he had nothing to do with corruption by saying that he did not know Kim Moon-ki, who was pointed out as a key person in Daejang-dong's corruption.

In the end, this seems to be the issue. According to our related precedents, it must be a specific fact in order to punish by publicizing false facts. The prosecutor should publish false information in an area where he can prove that this is true or not. In the end, there is an issue about whether the expression of knowing someone well or knowing personally is an expression of opinion or whether this is true.

The second is subjective perception, and the argument of party leader Lee Jae-myung is like this. First of all, not only did I not answer clearly because it was an improvised question from a live broadcast at the time, but in my memory at the time, I would have traveled together, played golf, had pictures, and did a lot of work, but since there are hundreds or thousands of lower-level employees under me, I thought I couldn't remember each one, and I didn't know if it was false, because the defendant's argument was not reasonable at all, but in the end, it is a real area of subjective perception and not a specific matter of facts, so I may not know this as an expression of opinion. I don't know if I'm going to be innocent like this. I think this is the key.

[Anchor]
Since it is such an important trial today, I listened to the lawyer's opinion one by one again regarding the remarks. So far, I've been with lawyer Son Jung-hye. Thank you.