In 10 days...Tomorrow, Lee Jae-myung's 'perjury teacher' will be sentenced in the first trial.

■ Host: Anchor Jang Won-seok and Anchor Yoon Bori
■ Starring: Attorney Kim Sung-soo


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


[Anchor]
As I told you, Lee Jae-myung, chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea, will be sentenced to the first trial on charges of perjury. As he was sentenced to prison for violating the Public Official Election Act earlier, he was at a political crossroads, so I will summarize the main issues with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. How are you? First, let's hear what kind of incident it is. It's supposed to go back 22 years, but it was the beginning of the prosecutor impersonation case, right?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think the case should be divided into three categories. First of all, it happened on the morning of May 10, 2002. KBS PD, who was covering the suspicion of preferential sale of Bundang Parkview at the lawyer's office at the time of Lee Jae-myung, will talk on the phone. He was angry, but the other party was Kim Byung-ryang, the former mayor of Seongnam, and at that time, the PD impersonated himself as a prosecutor and talked on the phone. So, Mayor, as I was proceeding with the case, I told him that there was a story about the mayor, and I called the mayor to help him. At that time, Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang thought it was an actual prosecutor, so he answered the question at the time of investigation.

However, it was later revealed that this was an impersonation of a prosecutor, so KBS PD Lee and then lawyer Lee Jae-myung conspired to commit impersonation of public servant status and were put on trial. And it was confirmed at the time, but in the case of PD Lee, the sentence was suspended, that is, it is a crime, but the sentence is suspended, and in the case of CEO Lee Jae-myung, he was fined 1.5 million won at the time. So it can be seen as a primary incident. After that, a second factual relationship occurs on May 29, 2018. At that time, KBS will hold a debate on the Gyeonggi governor's election broadcast. And at that time, another candidate tells CEO Lee Jae-myung that.

Wasn't he fined at the time? When I asked him if he was fined for impersonating a public official in Bundang Park View, Lee Jae-myung made a secondary statement saying, "I didn't do it, but the PD was impersonating me, and I was interviewing next to him, so I helped him." However, the prosecution prosecuted him on December 11, 2018 because it believed that the story in the debate was a public announcement of false information under the Public Official Election Act, and he was acquitted on July 16, 2020. As a result, this becomes a secondary fact, and after the third round, the prosecution will find out another case other than this case and secure a recording file. The contents of the recorded file were that the trial was held in 2018, right?

However, the contents of the call between Kim Jin-sung, former secretary of Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang, and Lee Jae-myung, who attended the trial as a witness, and when the prosecution saw the contents of the call, it was judged that there was a part that could have been asked to attend the trial and give perjury, so Kim Jin-sung was indicted for perjury, and Lee Jae-myung was instructed to give perjury, so he is currently charged with perjury.

[Anchor]
As you said, the prosecutor impersonation charge was fined, and the violation of the Public Official Election Act was cleared of innocence by the Supreme Court in 2020. But why did this case come up again?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As I said earlier, when the recording came out, and the prosecution saw the contents of the recording, it was seen that this was teaching perjury, asking for false testimony, and if it is true that perjury was taught, there is of course a punishment regulation under the criminal law. Therefore, because we have grasped the facts of the perjury teacher, we are prosecuting this and having a trial.

[Anchor]
The prosecution believes that they asked for perjury. CEO Lee Jae-myung is not a perjury teacher. We'll listen to the recording briefly and continue our conversation.

[Anchor]
The prosecution asked the court to serve three years in prison for the perjury teacher case. What issues will we be discussing?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the end, whether perjury is established and whether the part that taught it is established, these two things can be seen, and in order for perjury to be established, it is necessary to prove that false testimony was made. In the case of the Supreme Court, there is a part that the perjury is not established for the part where the opinion on the facts was discussed. So, did Kim Jin-sung's testimony at the time state the facts or his opinion? You'll have to consider this part and see if perjury is established. And if it is established, then there is a part where we need to see whether Lee Jae-myung taught this perjury, so we need to look at the meaning of this call and the circumstances afterwards. And what representative Lee Jae-myung is talking about now is that in the recording file. There's also a part where I say, "Please tell me the truth."

That's why if you listen to the recorded file, I asked you to tell me the truth, and this is not teaching perjury, and the prosecution claims that this was the case, and the prosecution continues to remember that this was true when looking at the overall situation, it seems to be teaching perjury and injecting facts and teaching perjury by talking to this purpose. Since we are talking about this, I think we need to look at this part of how the court will judge the facts and legal principles.

[Anchor]
As CEO Lee claims, there is no such direct expression as asking for perjury. But it's good to tell them that there was a connection. There's this expression. How can I interpret this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Wasn't the part that Lee Jae-myung claimed that there was a vice-principal actually related to KBS PD at the time? There was some agreement between KBS and Kim Kyung-ryang, the former mayor of Seongnam, regarding the KBS PD, and he is claiming that there was such a charge of driving the facts against Lee Jae-myung, and there was a communion between KBS and former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang on this part, which seems to contain this part. That's why the prosecution is looking at it like this, saying, "Didn't the prosecution ask you to make a statement in this direction?" Also, if you look at the contents of the call, they send you a summary of your argument.

Representative Lee Jae-myung says, "I will send you the summary of our case," but the prosecution probably claims the facts in this summary. Since I'm doubting whether I was asking you to make a statement according to the facts, I think I can look at it a little differently depending on how to interpret the facts and how to interpret the contents.

[Anchor]
Looking at the prosecution's sentence alone, they asked for two years for the previous violation of the election law. He asked for three years for the perjury teacher charge to be held tomorrow. What does the sentence difference mean?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the amount of sentence itself does not continue the court's judgment, so it can be seen as talking about how to view the facts in the prosecution. So, there were many stories about sentencing standards, but in fact, sentencing standards are something that can be recommended by the court in determining, not when the prosecution demands them. So, this part, the three-year sentence itself, is a part that the court asked for a very serious consideration, and considering the overall circumstances, this perjury can distort the court's judgment and eventually punish the application of the law itself, right?

That's why I'm looking at it with the intention of looking at it very seriously. Given this overall facts, if the perjury teacher is found not guilty due to the influence of the trial, it can be very problematic, so I think it is a sentence to emphasize this part. [Anchor] There is a lot of talk in politics about whether to be arrested in court if a prison sentence is issued. This is because the arrest agreement was passed last year, and Han Dong-hoon, the representative of People's Power, said, "We don't need the consent of the National Assembly," but Lee's side argues that the warrant was rejected after that, so we need to get the consent of the National Assembly again. How can I see it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, if you look at Article 44 of the Constitution, where this is an issue, the privilege of non-arrest is specified for members of the National Assembly. So, lawmakers are not arrested or detained during the session without the consent of the National Assembly unless they are current offenders, which is stipulated in Article 44 of the Constitution and Article 26 of the National Assembly Act, in order for a judge to request an arrest motion, he or she sends a request for consent to the National Assembly and the government puts it back to the National Assembly and then votes at the National Assembly. So the issue is how to view this procedure. Isn't there something that was agreed at the time of the National Assembly? If you ask for consent to execute an arrest warrant in this part and it is specified, it is only a warrant for that part. As you can see, but if that part is not clear, the interpretation of that part can eventually become a legal issue once again. However, if there is no fear of escape or destruction of evidence in the first trial, there are cases where other cases are sentenced to prison. Therefore, even if legal detention is not an issue of the arrest agreement, it should be watched.

[Anchor]
The reason for the controversy now is that there is no regulation on the effectiveness of the request for arrest. Since the session is different, you need to get consent for arrest again, no. I think there will be a long controversy over that as well.

[Kim Sung-soo]
There will be a session, and since it was received when applying for an arrest warrant at the time, it is inevitable that the issue will be about how long it will be effective, and there has been no such case. If this becomes a legal issue, we can try to make a legal judgment again. However, as I said, if there is no fear of destroying evidence or fleeing regardless of this part, there is a possibility that this will not be an issue because the first trial will not be arrested in court.

[Anchor]
But it's not just tomorrow in front of CEO Lee Jae-myung. There's a series of trials left. Let's point it out.

[Kim Sung-soo]
As previously reported, in addition to the perjury teacher, the violation of the Public Official Election Act was convicted in the first trial, and an appeals court is underway. If so, the appeal will proceed, and the current perjury teacher will be sentenced tomorrow, but even if either result comes out, both sides are likely to appeal. Therefore, I think the appeals court will proceed with this part as well. And there are three other cases. In one case, there is a recent suspicion of misappropriation of corporate cards in Gyeonggi-do Province, another case involving Daejang-dong, Baekhyun-dong, and Seongnam FC is being conducted separately, and finally, the case of double bubble remittance to North Korea is also being carried out, so it will be important to see how Lee Jae-myung's loss of his parliamentary seat will be judged overall, depending on when the first trial, appeal, and the outcome.

[Anchor]
Another opposition party, Cho Kuk, leader of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party, is also set to make a Supreme Court decision on the 12th of next month. The charges can be complicated. Can you explain it to me?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Didn't the allegations become a big issue due to irregularities in entrance exams? There are charges against each son and daughter, and there is one part where there is an issue such as obstruction of business against the university or the exercise of counterfeit private documents or official documents.
And another thing, the actions of the special inspectors themselves at the time can be divided into two parts: the abuse of authority and the exercise of rights. Considering the current facts, most of them have been found guilty.

[Anchor]
Both the first and second trials received two years in prison for the most controversial allegations of corruption in children's entrance exams and the exercise of rights to special inspectors.

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. As you said, most of the charges have been admitted now, so they have been sentenced to two years in prison, but they have not been arrested in court right now. Therefore, even if the judgment is made the same in the appeal, there are talks about whether it is possible to be arrested in court, but there are many charges and a lot of legal judgments, right? Therefore, if some of them are reversed and returned by the Supreme Court, this process will proceed to argue with the Supreme Court once again through the revocation and repatriation. Then, since this part will also take a very long time, some say that the re-appeal and such re-appeal will continue until the end of the parliamentary term. [Anchor] The referee of this issue is drawing attention. This is Justice Eom Sang-pil, who sentenced former professor Jeong Kyung-sim, the spouse of representative Cho Kuk, to prison in the appeal trial. On what basis did you convict him at this time?

[Kim Sung-soo]
At that time, Supreme Court Justice Um Sang-pil appears to have been the chief judge of the appeals court. And at that time, there were various issues, but there was a part where the ability to prove facts itself was a problem. In the case of PCs, there were parts such as lack of evidence because they were acquired due to illegal reasons. At that time, the court recognized the evidence capabilities of two PCs in this regard, and was convicted by acknowledging most of the facts claimed by the prosecution as a whole.

[Anchor]
On the 12th of next month, the Supreme Court's final judgment will determine the political life of representative Cho Kuk. What happens to CEO Cho now if he is convicted as per the original trial next month?

[Kim Sung-soo]
For now, if a sentence of imprisonment or higher is sentenced, including probation, you will lose your parliamentary seat. And if you lose your seat, there are no other restrictions on legal detention. Because it has been confirmed, it seems highly likely that a two-year prison sentence will actually be executed through legal detention, and when that happens, the membership is lost, so this part of the party is also related to the right to vote. That part is expected to be an additional problem.

[Anchor]
So if you're convicted, you'll be imprisoned immediately after your sentence?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. Isn't it a final decision? If it is a final judgment, it is a principle to be imprisoned immediately after sentencing.

[Anchor]
What happens if it's destroyed and returned?

[Kim Sung-soo]
If this is reversed and returned, the case will go back to the second trial. Then, isn't there a part of the Supreme Court's judgment in the second trial court? The legal principles on that part will be re-judged, and accordingly, even if such other laws are applied, if they are guilty, they can be brought to the Supreme Court as guilty, and if they are innocent according to the Supreme Court's judgment, they can be brought to the Supreme Court as innocent. Then, if you are acquitted, the prosecution will appeal again, so if so, it will take much longer to confirm.

[Anchor]
This time, let's talk about the ruling party. The power of the people is now abuzz with anonymous bulletin boards. When I researched the anonymous People's Power Party bulletin board, I found that a slanderous article about President Yoon was posted in the name of representative Han Dong-hoon and his family. The key is who wrote this, but what I'm curious about this case is, can posts on anonymous bulletin boards be subject to punishment?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Even if it is an anonymous bulletin board, it can be punished if there is something like this, such as defaming someone or threatening someone. And even if it's an anonymous bulletin board, it may not be difficult for the person concerned and the person writing the article to be special in the end. Therefore, I understand that accusations have been filed against defamation or allegations, but if so, I think we can specify personal information through this investigation.

[Anchor]
Then, if it's not a defamation part, but a criticism or accusation, is this a punishment?

[Kim Sung-soo]
The content may differ depending on whether it can be viewed as defamation or insults. If there is any possibility of defamation, of course, the party will be able to file a complaint, and if it is admitted to do so, it is punishment, otherwise it is not defamation, it was criticism or accusation of any action against a particular person, and there is public interest. If there is such a part, this part of defamation will not be established, so it is important how the content was written.

[Anchor]
The key is who wrote it. Within the power of the people, there are those who demand that a party audit be conducted so that they can confirm their party affiliation, while others oppose the disclosure of the identity of the party members under the party law. Which one is right?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, specifying who the author is will be able to be specified through a complaint, but isn't this person trying to confirm whether he is a member of the party? Then, you can think of various ways to check the party members, but if you say you will do it by reading the party members' list, there are regulations that cannot be enforced if there is no court judgment or such part in reading. Therefore, if it is done through the party's list, it will be a legal issue, and if it is done through other methods, it will be necessary to see if it will be a legal issue.

[Anchor]
The police sent an official letter asking them to preserve the bulletin board server data of the people's power. What will happen to the investigation in the future?

[Kim Sung-soo]
The request to keep the bulletin board server data itself seems to be intended to identify the IP address and personal information at the time of subscription to identify what kind of articles this person posted and who he or she is, and if you can find it, you can be punished for obstruction of business by entering illegal words on computers under the criminal law. In such cases, defamation under the Information and Communication Network Act and defamation under the criminal law can also be an issue. And some say it's a threat now. Therefore, in that case, if the threat is correct, I think that even the crime of intimidation under the criminal law can be punished.

[Anchor]
Some even raise suspicions about hacking or macro. How do you think the investigation will proceed?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As I said, I'll see if there's anyone who can specify their IP address or personal information at the time of signing up. And when you specify it through IP or something like that, if there are several people in this part, you have to investigate all of them. We will do so, and we need to specify and share each fact and what kind of post we posted. After looking at
I think this person's article of what time the next few months contains, and whether this is defamation or intimidation in this case, I think we will separate it, prosecute it, and judge whether he is guilty through trial.

[Anchor]
What is the level of punishment if the defamation charge is found to be true?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Since there is defamation under the Information and Communication Network Act and defamation under the Criminal Act, the sentence for that part is different. And wouldn't there be defamation stating facts and defamation stating false facts? Therefore, we need to look at that separately, but in the case of false and timely defamation, it can be considered for up to seven years, so this can be punished very heavily, and even anonymous bulletin boards can be specified, so it is necessary to be careful to post such comments or malicious posts.

[Anchor]
Let's stop here today. It was lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Thank you.