[Issue ON] Lee Jae-myung's 'perjury teacher' is not guilty in the first trial...Court "Not intentional"

■ Host: ∀ Anchor, Lee Harin Anchor
■ Starring: Lawyer Yang Ji-min, 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 NewsON] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Now, let's take a closer look at the judgment of the court. Lee Jae-myung was acquitted in the first trial on charges of perjury, right?

[Anchor]
Let's take the two lawyers and consider each and every one of the decisions. We are with Yang Ji-min and Son Jung-hye. Welcome.

[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung was acquitted in the first trial of the perjury teacher's trial. First of all, did the two of you get the same ruling as expected? How did you expect it and how did you see the ruling?

[Son Jeonghye]
One of the grounds for many legal professionals to predict guilt seems to have made a lot of judgments that it would be close to guilt because of the court's primary judgment that there was a certain amount of criminal explanation during the warrant review process. Secondly, I don't think the purpose of doing this to the effect that I can't remember well in the contents of the released transcript was definitely perjury, but I thought it would be guilty because indirect circumstances were revealed, but in conclusion, it is a matter of acquittal.

[Anchor]
In other words, he raised the lawyer's hand in the conflict between the lawyer's argument and the prosecution's argument.

[Jimin Yang]
The claims of the prosecution and the lawyer were confronted from the beginning. Considering the sentence of three years, the prosecution saw that there were many unfavorable factors in sentencing based on the premise of guilt, just by looking at the maximum amount of the weighting factors added to the sentencing criteria. On the other hand, in fact, according to CEO Lee Jae-myung and his lawyer, he continued to claim innocence from the beginning, so it can only be said that he has been consistent with a completely contradictory argument from the beginning. However, in the end, the court almost accepted CEO Lee Jae-myung's story and virtually admitted him as innocent. However, the part that can be seen as a little unusual is that he was guilty of an accomplice who committed perjury and was acquitted of CEO Lee Jae-myung, who is a teacher.

[Anchor]
As you said, Kim Jin-sung's perjury was recognized, but the perjury teacher was not. Isn't this an unusual case?

[Son Jeonghye]
Usually, it is common for perjury teachers and regular offenders of perjury to be guilty or innocent together, but the mixed aspects may not be immediately convinced. First of all, the important thing is that he confessed to perjury. That's why it may be reasonable to go toward guilt, but Lee Jae-myung's representative perjury teacher has pleaded not guilty from one to ten, so according to strict proof, he was found not guilty in a different way. There was a motive for perjury that false testimony could be advantageous for representative Lee Jae-myung, but there is no one who gave perjury, so I think we should wait and see how the judgment of the appeals court can be.

[Anchor]
If so, there was a transcript presented by the prosecution as evidence. It was a 30-minute transcript. Let's hear some of them. Let's hear from your two lawyers how the court judged this statement on this. Shall we listen to the recording first?

[Anchor]
Let's take a look at them one by one. Lawyer Yang Ji-min and representative Lee Jae-myung said, "It's as it is." So I never told you to perjure yourself. And I emphasized that I just talked about it ten times as it was, and I accepted this part. In addition, even in the case of the summary of the argument, the sending of the summary of the argument itself required perjury. The court did not accept the prosecution's claim that it caused perjury, right? Please tell me these two things.

[Jimin Yang]
So, as you said, there was a part of the recording that could be interpreted in favor of CEO Lee Jae-myung, and from the investigative agency's point of view, it can be seen as coercion if they have talked with frequency several times as if they were sending a summary of the argument or trying to recall their memories. First of all, the justice department judged that it was part of the exercise of the right to defend against the fact that Lee Jae-myung called and checked from the standpoint of representative Lee Jae-myung. So anyway, you asked for a witness and called the person who came forward as a witness, and you remember it like this, right? Asking "I was like this at that time" itself is a fact that can be confirmed for one's own benefit. It was interpreted that it did not go beyond that range. At the same time, it can be seen as part of the defendant's exercise of defense rights because he did not request testimony about specific details, but confirmed the situation at that time. I didn't accept perjury teachers because I didn't think it was beyond that range.

[Anchor]
What the prosecution emphasized in the recording was that representative Lee Jae-myung sent a summary of his argument. And I think it would be helpful if you could tell me that this is an event in a very political background. It was something like this. All of this is the usual right to defend, so the court judged it like this, right?

[Son Jung-hye]
That's right. First of all, it seems that there were three pieces of evidence. A phone call, that's a transcript. The second was the act of delivering the summary of the argument, and the third was that the acquaintance instructed him to do it to this effect while writing an affidavit or witness examination when he came to court in the future. Regarding these three, he stated his position on the phone call and said he did not know because it was clearly disadvantageous, but there was no request for further testimony to do so. That's why I'm innocent. I made a request for remembering, sympathizing, or not explicitly denying it.

So, can't you say that you don't remember it like this or explain it yourself? It's intended to be innocent because it's missing, but in general, a case of perjury to a witness may be, for example, telling them to do this, but this is what I insist on, and it's good to do this after pleading not guilty. If you look at this and say that you want to do this if you remember it indirectly and in a way, you may be guilty of making a decision to do false facts. It seems that there must have been a lot of trouble in judging whether it was guilty or not, but the court did not specifically teach it and considered that there was a lack of evidence of direct intervention.

[Anchor]
It is a matter of lack of evidence. And there was this in the court's judgment. It has not been decided whether to testify. And I knew or could not predict that I would perjure. So, why do you think this part was judged like this?

[Jimin Yang]
First of all, in order for the court to acknowledge any intention, there must be an act of perjury, an act of teaching it, and in addition to the act of being rude, there must be intention of the teacher. However, intention can only be admitted to the de facto intention of perjury if there is a possibility of predicting that I will give perjury because I will make that person perjury, but that part you mentioned eventually breaks the intention of this perjury teacher.

So, it was difficult to predict that this person would go out and make a statement even if I called like this, and at that time, there was no fixed rule about perjury or testifying, so it could be interpreted that it was difficult to admit it with the intention that this person would give perjury. First of all, it is pointed out that in order for the perjury teacher crime to be established, there must be perjury and perjury of accomplices, and in addition, teacher behavior and intention, but there was no such predictability or predictability as a prerequisite for such intention to be established.

[Anchor]
If you look at the explanatory data of the court, there is also this content. The fact that Kim Jin-sung, a witness, talked to Lee Jae-myung's lawyer while preparing an affidavit and had an interview cannot be considered perjury in itself. I think this is also a story of a lack of evidence, so should we interpret this part?

[Son Jung-hye]
From the prosecution's point of view, the prosecution made it the basis for the indictment, saying, "We should submit an affidavit in advance and draw up a witness examination based on the affidavit to us, that is, to ask the facts in favor of the accused, but for the court, the witness Kim Jin-sung did not directly contact the representative Lee Jae-myung and coordinated one by one, but rather with the lawyer in charge, so the grounds for Lee Jae-myung's direct intervention were insufficient.

However, unilaterally, lawyers usually consult and coordinate with the defendant's client ahead of a very important witness examination. Send me a copy of the witness paper and ask if there's anything else to fix. However, since there is no specific evidence of involvement in it, it was not possible for the party leader Lee Jae-myung to predict or to know that the witness would say this, and the related part was the fact that the lawyer and Kim Jin-sung wrote an affidavit. To tell you, I think I've seen it very strictly, rather than the general perjury teacher case.

[Anchor]
Is it a broad interpretation of the right to defend?

[Son Jung-hye]
That's right. During our defense, we sometimes give the summary of our defense to friendly witnesses. We have arguments like this and the trial goes like this, so you come out as a witness and testify, this is the right to defend. That's possible. This is because if you share the contents or not, witnesses can decide whether to attend or not, or attend and think about how to make a statement.

[Anchor]
So, you judged that what you provided in the summary of your defense is not beyond your defense, right?

[Son Jung-hye]
However, how are you going to state the witness's statement in the ethics rules? Answer. Can you do this? Please do it like this. If you specifically give false information like this, this is perjury. So, in addition to delivering the summary of the argument like this, the court saw that Lee Jae-myung was a little lacking in specifically asking him to state this part like this, and the prosecution seems to have repeatedly implied or implied that it should be done when looking at the comprehensive evidence.

[Anchor]
This is a remark made during the 2018 Gyeonggi-do governor election debate. Kim Jin-sung, who made that statement at the time, confessed that he had perjured himself, and this was prosecuted, right? However, looking at the court today, Kim Jin-sung's six remarks one by one, he judged that two were not perjury, but four were perjury.

[Yang Jimin]
That's right. I divided all six statements and judged them. First of all, four out of six statements are perjury. So I judged that it was a false statement. Judging by the false statements, the main case was that the PD and CEO Lee Jae-myung conspired together at the time to impersonate as public officials, and there was a complaint against the two, so whether or not to drop the complaint against the PD. There was such a consultation or atmosphere.

This kind of story actually comes out in the transcript, too. However, four of those remarks were found guilty. Therefore, it does not appear that Kim Jin-sung, the secretary of the execution, actually heard about such consultations, or that he did not know exactly. Nevertheless, I have heard such consultations come and go, and I also make specific statements about the timing. When was it? And I heard this from the late Mayor Kim Byung-ryang, saying this.

[Anchor]
I'm sure you said it was perjury.

[Jimin Yang]
That's right. He confessed to that as perjury, so the court saw those four statements as false statements and false statements. For the other two statements, there was such an atmosphere at the time. There was an atmosphere of whether to actually drop the charges or not, and I answered that there was such an atmosphere. However, if you look closely at the transcript, there is a part where Kim Jin-sung tells Lee Jae-myung that he had such an atmosphere at the time.

So, the court took that part and told CEO Lee Jae-myung that Kim Jin-sung had such an atmosphere first, and this was a statement that relied on his own memory. Therefore, statements about such an atmosphere are not actually perjury, but I was found guilty of specifically stating that the rest of the consultation was heard, when the consultation was.

[Anchor]
The prosecution's response came in as a breaking news, so I'll tell you first. The prosecution is not convinced of Lee Jae-myung's innocence in the perjury teacher case. I made a short statement that I will appeal soon.

[Anchor]
I said I'd appeal. Wasn't it said that the judgment of the first trial court lacked evidence in the future?

[Son Jung-hye]
That's right. There may be differences in interpretation and perspective on facts, and I think I can tell you this, and is there a need for the teacher's actions to be concrete or repeated in the perjury teacher case of the same case? The interpretation of this seems to have been a little different, and I think we should wait for the judgment of the appeals court. There were a lot of testimonies in favor of the prosecution.

Of course, there was a lot of evidence in favor of the defendant, and what the prosecution presented as the most important evidence was the statement of accomplice Kim Jin-sung. Kim Jin-sung testified to the effect that he did it because CEO Lee Jae-myung asked him to do it like this. Then, the judgment on the credibility of the testimony that he received a perjury teacher may be written in the judgment after Lee Jae-myung's acquittal, but there are parts that are missing when explaining verbally. If the witness is highly reliable, it can be used as evidence that was guilty, and this can change the judgment. Basically, the structure of a criminal case can be innocent if the prosecutor does not prove it properly.

As such, the court said that there is a lack of evidence on this point and that there is room for interpretation as a general defense guarantee, and that it is difficult to say that the prosecution has taught perjury given that it expressed its position at first and talked about it, but no longer asked for it.

[Anchor]
In the past, representative Lee Jae-myung also claimed that the prosecution had woven it. This is a statement made on September 30th. Let's listen to it for a bit. The prosecution's response came out in detail, so I'll tell you once again. Earlier, I broke the news that the prosecution will appeal the acquittal because it is difficult to understand. To convey it in more detail, the defendant Kim Jin-sung has already confessed that he falsely testified at the request of CEO Lee Jae-myung today in connection with the court's judgment on the perjury teacher case against CEO Lee Jae-myung. The court found Kim Jin-sung guilty of perjury due to the teacher's act of the defendant Lee Jae-myung, but found it difficult to understand that the defendant Lee Jae-myung was not guilty because there was no scope for perjury. So the prosecution said it would do its best to prove guilt after closely reviewing the ruling and then appealing it.

[Anchor]
We've heard the prosecution's position. CEO Lee Jae-myung, if you listen to the previous recording, there is a strong objection to the prosecution that he taught perjury by fabricating it, saying, "Is this not case manipulation or evidence manipulation?" Is there anything in the ruling related to it?

[Son Jung-hye]
Specifically, there is no judgment on how the recording content is distorted or this is related to this part. I don't think the overall purpose of the recording was to continue explaining his position from the perspective of party leader Lee Jae-myung, but to specifically teach him to speak false. It's like this that this comment came out. It's for 30 minutes. There is evidence that the prosecutor can use as evidence of guilt, and there is evidence that can be considered innocent. So please tell me any statements that can be considered innocent as you remember.

This is evidence of innocence. But on the other hand, didn't something like this happen to someone who doesn't remember? Don't you remember that part? You can tell me that. This is guilty. It seems that the credibility and evidence ability of the recorded file mixed with guilt or innocence were acknowledged, but specific statements contrary to memory were no longer sufficient. I think it was that kind of evaluation.

[Anchor]
However, according to the statistics of perjury teachers over the past six years, prison sentences or probation reached 93%, so I think there were many legal professionals who made similar predictions. What do you think is the main reason and the reason for this judgment that overturns the prediction?

[Yang Jimin]
As you said, the actual rate of imprisonment in perjury teacher cases is very high. In fact, even if you look at the judgment criteria for the past six years, only about 6% of them have been sentenced to fines, so if they are found innocent, in fact, if they are found guilty, the nature of the crime is considered very badly, and in fact, the prison sentence is high. Nevertheless, the acquittal of the perjury teacher can be seen as a broad view of the defendant's right to defend and the process of confirming the witnesses he or she usually applied for.

In addition, it should be said that the requirements for acknowledging the act of being a teacher were very strict and strict. So, it's because of the overall purpose of the transcript. Rather than saying that you can be a teacher, it seems that you have opened each remark and judged whether there was a de facto teaching act for each remark, so for now, the standard of teaching behavior itself is set very high.

[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung was found not guilty in the first trial regarding perjury teachers. Looking at the court's judgment now, the defendant's request method was to remember or confirm what he knew. This is a normal request for testimony. He said it was difficult to get out of the exercise of the right to defend himself as a defendant, and he did not ask for testimony about the details. Therefore, in the future, I did not request a detailed testimony on these three issues. It was difficult to escape the level of defense. And it was a routine request for testimony. This is what CEO Lee Jae-myung has been insisting on so far.

[Son Jung-hye]
This acquittal reflects most of the defendant's position. Therefore, I think that a large part of the innocence may contain the gist of the defendants' arguments. In particular, in the process of preparing for such a trial, for example, important witnesses are not contacted in advance, but in the case of friendly witnesses and Daedong witnesses, they contact them first to ask these questions and go through the process of confirming the facts, saying, "How did you remember that time?" That's why I consulted with a lawyer and came out with an affidavit and a witness examination, but this judgment is correct.

However, in addition to that, I don't remember the witness being like that, so please remember it like this, that part was missing. Since CEO Lee Jae-myung is also a lawyer, he would not have made such an irrational statement. Because lawyers know that this can be perjury. Didn't you teach this perjury in an indirect way? Because Kim Jin-sung recognized that he was asked to perjure himself that various actions would be stated to this effect. In that regard, the prosecution seems to be saying that they will appeal now. There seems to be still an issue regarding that.

[Anchor]
Lawyer Yang Ji-min said CEO Lee Jae-myung on the perjury teacher charge, and the court said the charges appear to have been cleared when the warrant was reviewed last year. At that time, it was said that the perjury teacher charge appeared to have been cleared, but what was the difference from this court?

[Jimin Yang]
First of all, the court in charge of perjury did not actually make the judgment based on all the evidence relationships that have been issued by the perjury teacher. Therefore, it is possible to explain that if we talk about this in this direction, we did not see all the evidence relationships, so we actually judged by looking at only a part of it, so it may be a hasty judgment. On the other hand, whether there is only one accurate evidence to be considered guilty or ten, the degree of it is only different, and even if there is one, it can be said that it is actually a vocation just by looking at it, but then it can be explained to the effect that it has reached the stage of proof if more evidence is presented and the hearing is conducted with it.

That's why there are explanations from both sides, but the difference between the two is that representative Lee Jae-myung exercised some kind of defense right when conducting a warrant review, so it was not a judgment I received while arguing fiercely for innocence on these legal principles, but a judgment on whether to issue a warrant or not, so there is a difference in that representative Lee Jae-myung did not have this fierce legal battle at the time.

[Anchor]
For lawyer Son Jung-hye, Lee Kun-tae of the Democratic Party of Korea is the party's legal spokesman today. He said that. Vocation and proof are different. At the warrant stage, the vocation is a very low level of proof, and in order to be convicted, it must be a very high level of proof called proof.

[Son Jung-hye]
is correct. It is natural for prosecutors to be found guilty only when they prove the crime so strictly that there is no reasonable doubt, but in the end, it is time for prosecutors to do their homework. In the end, all cases of trial, investigation, and witnessing for such a long time were found not guilty. As such, the prosecution brought a lot of homework, and this case will affect not only the prosecution's homework but also the legal profession, saying that the perjury teacher case should be proved with such strict proof, and there may be consideration that the perjury offenders cannot be properly caught.

So, if I tell you this precedent in a word now, the defendant wants to be innocent, so I can ask a friendly witness, tell them my position, and share the facts that I can be acquitted. This is possible, but you have to go further and make such a statement. I'm innocent, but please make this statement, I'm telling you to clearly prove this. The prosecution's homework is the process of proving this.

[Anchor]
I see. Wait a minute. There was a rally in Seocho-dong today between progressive and conservative groups, right?

[Anchor]
That's right. When Representative Lee Jae-myung was acquitted, the reactions of both sides were mixed. We will continue our conversation after looking at reporter Chung Hyeon-woo's report. We looked at the atmosphere of the National Assembly at this time. Representative Lee Jae-myung has more trials left in the future. In particular, in the case of a violation of the Public Official Election Act, the second trial is ahead. First of all, what do you think will be the issue because the first trial of the Public Official Election Act has one year in prison and two years of probation?

[Son Jung-hye]
First of all, it seems clear that the main innocence claim in the first trial will continue in the appeal trial. Knowing and not knowing Director Kim Moon-ki is an individual opinion and subjective perception, and some of the publication of this as a false fact or related content was acquitted, but I think that part will continue to claim that his perception was in advance.

In particular, regarding the threat of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport regarding the change of land use, the court only requested cooperation, especially for other political purposes, despite exercising it with the mayor's autonomous authority. Furthermore, we prepared some prepared signs in advance for that story in one place. There is room for this to be seen as an act of public announcement, but in order for party leader Lee Jae-myung to be acquitted, there must be specific circumstances that local governments could suffer damage if officials come to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport under pressure or do not follow the opinions of the central government. In such a situation, we have no choice but to influence the policies related to the city because the central government has requested this, and if there is no such situation, the original judgment may be maintained.

[Anchor]
There was a saying that the first trial sentence, which took place in 10 days, was one step and one step back. Lawyer Yang Ji-min, how do you expect the second trial of the election law?

[Jimin Yang]
First of all, as you pointed out in the case of the Public Official Election Act, there may be areas to argue about, but it seems unlikely that additional evidence or smoking guns will be released to overturn the results. Therefore, it seems that we will focus on reviewing what kind of misunderstanding there is in the legal interpretation of the evidence that is currently available. Mainly, I think there will be a fierce legal battle in this area, whether the remarks made by publicizing false facts under the Public Official Election Act are about acts or perceptions. Because the prosecution said that the fact that it did not know about Director Kim Moon-ki is actually an act of speaking as part of an act to deny its connection to Daejang-dong, there may be a legal dispute over that part.

On the other hand, representative Lee Jae-myung said that it was a threat from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, but if the word "threat" was included, and in fact, it would be just right to say that it was changed to pressure, so why did he talk about it as a threat at the time? Therefore, there is still room for interpretation as to whether this can be interpreted as being threatened by strict consideration, or whether it can be interpreted in such a way that the official letter came several times that he was under pressure at the time.

[Anchor]
In the future, representative Lee Jae-myung should be tried again regarding the remittance to the North, but Lee Hwa-young, the former vice governor of Gyeonggi Province, was sentenced to the second trial this Friday, right?

[Son Jung-hye]
That's right. Since the first trial sentenced to more than nine years of heavy sentence and most of the convictions were made, it is proven guilty without much change, and it seems very important whether a sentence with a little reduced sentence comes out in the sentencing. The remittance case to North Korea seems to be a case in which the prosecution must find and prosecute evidence of guilt in connection with Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the party, as a third-party bribe for violating the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act, but if the Lee Hwa-young case is found guilty by an appeals court, the prosecution can write a ruling on the Lee Hwa-young case as evidence of guilt.

However, it is another matter of whether there was an illegal request, whether it was conspired or reported, so in the end, there is still evidence of whether the governor knew and recognized the conspiracy relationship and the actions of Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young properly.

[Anchor]
You said that the relationship between former Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young and Representative Lee Jae-myung, the public offering relationship, and this is an important issue right now. What do you expect of this?

[Yang Jimin]
That's right. So, in fact, the first trial found him guilty of the act of Lieutenant Governor Lee Hwa-young, and he was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months in prison. Therefore, there may be differences in sentencing, but it is correct to say that the expectation is low for conviction to be overturned as innocent. And there is a reversal of position in the middle, that is, a reversal of the statement, and in fact, such a procedure is necessary to examine the credibility of the statement, and it seems a little difficult for the appeals court to take a different position forward.

However, in order for this to be linked to representative Lee Jae-myung, the main issue is that Lee Jae-myung is also aware of the actions of former lieutenant governor Lee Hwa-young at that time, and with some intention to conspire and find out this connection. In this regard, if the prosecution actually secures any important evidence or statement, would it not be true? Otherwise, it is actually such an area of perception, and if it is not accompanied by accurate evidence at the time, there will be another fierce legal battle.

[Anchor]
I see. And Kim Jin-sung's perjury. You were fined 5 million won for perjury. But I heard that Lee Jae-myung's perjury teacher case came out during the investigation of Baekhyun-dong.

[Son Jung-hye]
That's right. Since Kim Jin-sung also handled the business part related to Lee Baek-hyun-dong, in fact, Kim Jin-sung's relationship with Lee Jae-myung at the time has no choice but to comply with what demands. I think these points should also be noted. In this case, many transcripts were reviewed during Baekhyun-dong's investigation, and the investigation was conducted separately because it was secured as evidence. And as it is a matter of perjury, there are still quite a few ongoing investigation cases.

As such, various related cases continue to occur, in which one case becomes evidence of guilt in another case, and the key suspect in this case becomes a witness in this case. So, from the people's point of view, there are a lot of cases, a lot of people involved, and a lot of evidence. Even the judgments of the first and second trials may be hoping for a more rapid judgment as we look at this case, which can be mixed.

[Anchor]
I see. Thank you very much. Representative Lee Jae-myung, 1st trial. We took a closer look at the main contents of the first trial's acquittal regarding perjury teacher. So far, we've been with lawyer Yang Ji-min and lawyer Son Jung-hye. Thank you.