[Issue Plus] Lee Jae-myung's perjury teacher is innocent of the first trial...Prosecutors "will appeal"

■ Host: Lee Yeo-jin, anchor Jang Won-seok
■ Starring: Lawyer Lee Go-eun

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

[Anchor]
The first trial court, which acquitted CEO Lee Jae-myung of perjury today, saw that there was no intention or direct evidence of perjury. Let me point out with the lawyer Lee Go-eun what the basis for the judgment is and the relevant information. Please come in. Regarding the violation of the election law on the premise of 10 days, there were many evaluations that it was higher than expected because of the loss of parliamentary seats, but today he was acquitted. Did you expect that?


In fact, it was a little different from what I expected. So, if the perjury teacher is acquitted of CEO Lee Jae-myung, he is actually the perjury offender who perjured him. Kim Jin-sung should be acquitted, but Kim Jin-sung confessed. So, in fact, it was judged that it was a little difficult to be acquitted of representative Lee Jae-myung. Because the crime of perjury itself is a structure in which those who perjury gain nothing, and the teacher who perjures it gains, it is common for the teacher to be convicted of perjury, so I actually predicted that Lee Jae-myung would be likely to be convicted before the sentence.

[Anchor]
Then, let's listen to the prosecution's claim that we thought CEO Lee Jae-myung called Kim Jin-sung to teach perjury. First of all, the prosecution judged that Kim Jin-sung was pressured by CEO Lee and perjured him, but the court did not intend to do so. What is the reason?


In fact, I've read the court's data and explanations about the ruling, and the main reason for the court's acquittal is that Kim Jin-sung, who gave perjury, was guilty of perjury, but there was no teacher action and no intention of the teacher.

For a perjury teacher to be established, there must be an act of teaching perjury. And one of the last constitutional requirements is the scope of the teacher, that is, the perjury offender has no intention of committing a crime at all, but there should be this act of teaching that makes the teacher decide to commit such a crime and that I am teaching him. First of all, whether CEO Lee Jae-myung reminds Kim Jin-sung of his memory in the transcript of the call or sends a summary of his argument, such behavior cannot be evaluated as a perjury teacher. He said that this is an act of guaranteeing a legitimate right to defend and being included in the right to plead, and this cannot be evaluated as an act of teaching any perjury beyond that.

In addition, the court's judgment is that representative Lee Jae-myung himself was a doctor to remind him of his memories in the direction he thought was right, so he did not intend to teach him to say anything that was completely different from the truth. This leads to the conclusion that the perjury offender did not intend to teach the perjury teacher, but the perjury offender did so on his own even though he did not receive any benefits. So, I think we should wait and see if the same judgment will come out in the second trial.

[Anchor]
It's the defense summary that just came out. The ruling party and some sides said this was a guideline. Didn't you ask me to testify as it is, and the court saw this claim as innocent, right?


That's right. Giving the summary of the argument is not asking us to testify as it is, but just letting you know that our position is like this, and about the person we will call as a witness, for example, from 1 to 10, it's just a question of fact-checking what the witness remembers and what he can't remember, and it's hard to say that he taught perjury over it because his memory is blurred now, but he should still recall it.

But we need to focus on the concept of a pleading summary. When it comes to the summary of the argument, it is usually called the summary of the argument by combining all the testimony of all the witnesses in the first or second trial process, and the evidence that the defendant has. Then, if you give this document to one of the many witnesses, from the standpoint of this witness, oh, what part of the issue is the defendant now and how is he claiming it? And I know in advance before I testify that the direction of other evidence except me is being argued like this.

However, the court's judgment is that the act of issuing this summary cannot be evaluated as an act of any perjury teacher because there was no accurate writing to testify as written in the summary.

[Anchor]
In September last year, Yoo Chang-hoon, a judge in charge of warrants at the Central District Court, rejected the arrest warrant but said, "It seems to be explained to the testamentary teacher." Wasn't there a high possibility of Lee Jae-myung's guilt among the judicial risks?


That's right. In fact, many lawyers in Seocho-dong, including me, and I think the judge in charge of the perjury teacher's case was judged to be guilty of the perjury teacher's case when the warrant judge reviewed the records during the investigation. However, in fact, even if it was judged that way at the actual stage of the warrant, the trial was actually conducted.

Since there were many witnesses in the meantime and representative Lee Jae-myung, who was a defendant, also submitted a lot of favorable evidence, the relationship of evidence at the time of the actual examination of the arrest warrant and the relationship of evidence presented by the first trial court now may be clearly different. Therefore, just because the chief warrant judge judged that way, the results of the first trial are not necessarily bound or necessarily the same, but anyway, since the warrant judge is also an opinion that has thoroughly reviewed the records and presented them during the investigation stage, I think those parts are one of the grounds for those who expected a conviction to come out.

[Anchor]
Also, some of the grounds for innocence today were that CEO Lee Jae-myung and Kim Jin-sung did not predict whether Kim would testify or what he would testify at the time of the call. How did you interpret this?


Now, that is an important part of the explanation of the judgment results. That's the case with the court. There are various issues, and from Lee Jae-myung's point of view, there was a claim that he called each issue to simply check the facts about whether the witness remembered or not.

And because I didn't know exactly when I would testify at the time of the call, I decided to give Kim Jin-sung perjury and called him to teach him, but rather than this, I remember, and this is only a confirmation that is within the scope of a defense guarantee that the defendant or the defendant's lawyer can do to some extent.

[Anchor]
In fact, didn't the prosecution ask for a three-year prison sentence, the maximum sentence according to the Supreme Court sentencing standards? He said he would appeal as much as he did.


That's right. Of course the prosecution will appeal. This is because the Supreme Court's Sentencing Standards Committee also allows the perjury teacher to be sentenced to up to three years in prison if it falls under the weighted section. However, the prosecution asked for three years in prison, which is the highest sentence in the sentencing criteria. The prosecution can argue that the logic that the perjury offender is guilty, but the perjury teacher is innocent, is a little sloppy.

As I explained earlier, perjury actually does not benefit people who perjure themselves. Because they all just make statements about what I remember seeing and hearing as a reference. However, the person who benefits from perjury is the teacher, the defendant. Then there may be a little bit of a lack of logic that a person who doesn't gain anything is perjury without any benefit when they don't teach, and that person confesses.

I think the prosecution will probably dig into this part. Kim Jin-sung also stated several times that during the investigation phase, I gave perjury because I was taught perjury by Lee Jae-myung like this. However, the reason for the judgment is that there is a lack of direct evidence that perjury was taught. If so, there may be other logical deficiencies such as the evidence judgment of Kim Jin-sung's statements during the investigation stage and how the credibility of the evidence was judged.

So the prosecution can probably interrogate Kim Jin-sung as a witness again at the appeal trial. I think I'll ask you thoroughly whether there was exactly no teacher in this part, what pressure you felt while listening to the writing on this phone transcript, and whether this is true or not.

[Anchor]
Those who did not expect the first trial ruling now ask if there is a possibility that the ruling will change again in the second trial. How likely do you think this is?


In the second trial, it seems difficult for us to easily estimate that the result is exactly the same as the first trial. As I said earlier, I also lived as a lawyer and a prosecutor, but the perjury criminal was found guilty, and I was found guilty by confessing again, but I've never seen a perjury teacher innocent. It's a very unusual ruling. Even though there is a specific statement that the person who said he/she perjured himself/herself said that he/she received perjured teachers, he/she did not commit perjured teachers, and there was no intention of teachers, so I think I will look into this thoroughly in the second trial. In addition, I think the prosecution will thoroughly interrogate witnesses by summoning them again for the witnesses they called in the first trial.

[Anchor]
For the reason you said, I heard that perjury teachers are usually punished more severely than perjury offenders. So, Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won, but what kind of punishment will be given for perjury teachers?


There are very few cases where fines are imposed on perjury teachers. Usually, there are cases where there is a prison sentence or a suspended sentence of imprisonment. Even if a suspended sentence is given, the defendant is given the leniency of probation when he acknowledges and reflects on his perjury. In fact, many lawyers in the legal community used to expect that Lee Jae-myung would be likely to be sentenced to innocence or imprisonment in this ruling. Therefore, Kim Jin-sung, who is now judged to have perjured himself, was fined, but if the ruling on CEO Lee Jae-myung is overturned at the appeal trial, there is a possibility that he will be sentenced to prison.

[Anchor]
While CEO Lee Jae-myung was acquitted today, Kim Jin-sung received a sentence of 5 million won. What's the reason for your conviction?


Kim Jin-sung confessed. I admitted myself that I perjured myself and testified against my memory. In addition, there is material evidence in a way that he honestly stated that he did not remember during the phone call with CEO Lee Jae-myung. In the perjury case and the perjury teacher case, there are very few cases where there is accurate physical evidence whether a person booked as a perjury teacher calls the perjury offender.

So, in this case, there was accurate physical evidence of how he taught, and Kim Jin-sung, who is now convicted of being charged with perjury as a testator, said, "I received a phone call from Lee Jae-myung and felt pressure again, so I gave perjury for Lee Jae-myung," so it was easy for us to predict that Kim Jin-sung would be convicted.

[Anchor]
Then, let's continue talking after hearing the voice of CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was found not guilty in the first trial of perjury. He expressed his gratitude to the justice department for restoring truth and justice, but he seemed to be trying not to upset the justice department by saying, "We should not criticize the judiciary before this sentence." Would this have been valid?


In fact, I don't think the judiciary is going to acquit you or make you not guilty of those things. Right, anyway, even if you convict for example, isn't there a sentence? I think he showed an attitude of respect for the judiciary in consideration of those aspects because the part of how much he respects the judiciary may have an effect on that. In fact, perjury is not just against ordinary people, but it can cause confusion in the national order. In particular, since it is a crime that can disrupt the court order, respect for this court, and these can be another reason for sentencing, so I think he expressed his attitude toward the judiciary a little carefully.

[Anchor]
Some people say it's one win and one loss, only based on the results of the first trial. Can it be said that Lee Jae-myung has eased the burden of judicial risk a little with the acquittal of the first trial?


I think it's a little less. If you were convicted today, for example, it would have been very burdensome here because of CEO Lee Jae-myung's position and because there are three trials to come. First of all, I think CEO Lee Jae-myung took a breather as he was acquitted in the perjury teacher case, where the opinion that a little more conviction would be made today after last week's suspended sentence. Also, I think it's a ruling that put a little judicial risk.

[Anchor]
There was also an evaluation that senior judge Kim Dong-hyun, who sentenced the trial today, is the key man in charge of Lee's main trial. I heard that the same criminal department 33 will hear the case of Daejang-dong, Wirye New Town development preferential treatment, and Seongnam FC.


That's right. In fact, CEO Lee Jae-myung received a very pleasant and good ruling today, but the rest of the rulings and trials are continuing. As you said, the first trial is still undergoing various cases such as Daejang-dong, Baekhyun-dong, and Wirye. Also, the second trial will continue as the ruling, which was suspended last week, appealed. In addition, there are many cases to come, such as the case of Ssangbangwool remittance to North Korea in the Seoul Central District Court. Since there is even a corporate card case that has been additionally indicted this time, we will have to wait and see the results of the ruling in the future.

[Anchor]
If you think about the appeals court and the Supreme Court's judgment, it is expected to be very long. No one knows when it will end. However, if the standard is set as the next presidential election, will it be over by March 2027. How do you view it?


In fact, I think it will be difficult for us to predict that part easily. In fact, even though the Public Official Election Act stipulates the period of trial, the trial has been very long, unusually. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to predict how long it will take for the remaining trials to be confirmed by the Supreme Court, but what is clear is that it will be very difficult to finish within a year. Some are currently in the first trial and others are scheduled for the second trial. Also, it will take a lot of time for each trial to be heard by the Supreme Court, so if I guess carefully, it will not last until 2027, but it will be difficult to predict exactly how long it will take.

[Anchor]
There are so many political events this week that there is a saying that it is Super Week, but first, there is a second trial decision on illegal political funds by former Vice Chairman Kim Yong, a close aide to Lee Jae-myung, and former Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young's first trial on illegal remittance to North Korea. Both cases are not related to CEO Lee Jae-myung, right?


That's right. In particular, in the case of former Vice President Kim Yong, he announced that he would consider whether to accuse Lee Jae-myung as an accomplice in the Political Fund Act after seeing the results of today's trial from the People's Power. However, with today's acquittal, there is a possibility that the ruling party will soon file a complaint against former Vice President Kim Yong-myung about whether Lee Jae-myung is an accomplice. If that happens, there is a very high possibility that it will be an additional investigation.

If so, the conviction of former Vice President Kim Yong will inevitably affect the outcome of Lee Jae-myung's ruling. In addition, the ruling party points out this part because there was another Telegram evidence that representative Lee Jae-myung gave a defense or legal advice in a group chat room with a lawyer regarding former Vice Chairman Kim Yong's trial. So, not only former Vice President Kim Yong but also former Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young's trial results are not irrelevant to Lee Jae-myung. The outcome of these two rulings should also be watched, as there is a possibility of additional prosecution for their role as accomplices, another major culprit, and a possibility of further investigation.

[Anchor]
And if former Gyeonggi Province Governor Lee Hwa-young is convicted again at the appeal trial this Friday, there are many interpretations that Lee will also find it difficult to defend himself legally.


That's right. In particular, in the case of former Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young, what the first trial court said was that representative Lee's visit to North Korea was illegally paid. If the second trial decides as it is, it will eventually be recognized that the cost of Lee Jae-myung's visit to North Korea was illegally paid, so it will naturally affect the ruling of Lee Jae-myung and the investigation and trial of Lee Jae-myung. We'll have to watch this a little bit.

[Anchor]
Isn't CEO Lee Jae-myung on 5 trials right now? Among them, two have been sentenced to the first trial for the election law and the perjury teacher today, and the remaining three trials are still under review, so which of the remaining judicial risks do you think is the biggest risk?


I think all three will be major. It seems that there is material evidence because there is a clear fact that the parts related to the corporate card that were recently prosecuted are actually the details of the card's use. Of course, there will be various opinions on whether it is physical evidence directly related to the proof of the crime, but I think it is something to wait and see. I think the remaining three trials are very difficult to predict.

Because there are two judgments now, and the results of last week's judgment were also widely expected by the legal community that even if a fine was convicted, it would come out, but the suspension of execution came out contrary to expectations. There was an opinion that there was a possibility of being convicted in relation to the perjury teacher, but he was acquitted. So, we will have to wait and see the judgment of the court for the remaining three trials.

[Anchor]
The first trial is also underway in cases related to Daejang-dong and Baekhyun-dong. The perjury teacher's court will make a judgment. The court that made the judgment today will also be in charge of cases related to Daejang-dong and Baekhyun-dong, but if you recall the story of the first trial of the election law case, it was not a request or threat from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, but Lee himself reviewed and changed the purpose. Then, will this affect the later first trial rulings of Daejang-dong and Baekhyun-dong?


I think it could have an impact. Although the court may be different or the same for the parts of the judgment in the first trial, that part is of course viewed among the judges. Since the contents of the judgment seem to have been proven to some extent, even in other cases, the contents of the judgment or the testimony of the witnesses present at the time will be referred to for the part judged by the first trial court.

[Anchor]
What happens if you're acquitted today but found a perjury teacher charge a little guilty at the second trial?


As I said earlier, in fact, fines are sometimes imposed on perjury offenders, but in fact, there are more cases of imprisonment or probation than fines for perjury teachers. So, if the results of the first trial are overturned in the second trial and CEO Lee Jae-myung is convicted, I think there is a higher possibility that he will be sentenced to prison. The reason is that if the conviction is made by the second trial, CEO Lee Jae-myung will continue to deny the charges and not reflect on them.

As a result, these parts adversely affect CEO Lee Jae-myung's sentencing, so if the appeals court recognizes Lee Jae-myung as a perjury teacher, there is a high possibility that he will be sentenced to prison.

[Anchor]
Since the prosecution also expressed its intention to appeal today, there will probably be a fierce legal battle in the second trial, but the court also considered Kim Jin-sung not guilty of writing an affidavit after a phone interview with Lee's lawyer. How do you interpret this?


That's right. He said he gave Kim Jin-sung the issue of the witness interrogation in advance. Then, from Kim Jin-sung's point of view, he knew what to ask in advance and learned about it. In addition, he wrote an affidavit after talking to a lawyer, and the court believes that the affidavit is within the scope of the defense right because it is a part that can be sufficiently confirmed by the witness I will call as the defendant's lawyer, and that is not direct evidence to write an affidavit with false content.

However, if I am a little concerned about how this part will affect the trials of other ordinary people in the future, the defendant's lawyer can always contact me and a favorable witness at any time, and even if we issue a preliminary notice of what we claim and what the witness questionnaire to ask you is, it doesn't matter if we check in advance how to respond in the testimony, which is within the scope of the defense right guarantee, and if this happens, it will be very advantageous for the defendant. So, I am cautiously concerned that there will be cases where this part will be abused in the future.

[Anchor]
Some people talk about the same war and problems. Representative Lee Jae-myung has no previous history of perjury, but was fined 1.5 million won in 2003 for innocence. According to the sentencing criteria, perjury and innocence are the same crime.


It's a crime of the same kind. You lied to the judicial and investigative agencies, didn't you? Perjury and innocence are seen as the same kind of crimes because they are acts that confuse the legal order of the country. Therefore, the legal profession believes that although he was not punished as a perjury teacher before, if he has a history of being punished for innocence, such perjury and innocence are regarded as the same kind of crime.

[Anchor]
Kim Jin-sung, who confessed to perjury, was found guilty of perjury by the court. He said that severe punishment was necessary because it interfered with the judicial function. If so, according to the judiciary's judgment, Kim Jin-sung chose perjury on his own without being influenced by Lee Jae-myung, can he see it like this?


That's why I'm asking if it's a little logically contradictory. There is no benefit to perjury, but no one has taught it, but the person who perjured himself judged it for the teacher's crime, that is, for the person who testifies now, can this be logically established together to see that I have perjured myself even at the risk of taking legal responsibility? For example, the logic that the perjury person is not guilty of perjury itself, so that the perjury teacher is also not guilty can be established.

But you couldn't have judged it that way. Because the perjury person cannot be acquitted of the perjury unless he confesses to perjury. Therefore, in that this can be a very contradictory ruling, I think it is an issue that the prosecution can sufficiently argue about this part in the appeal trial. In particular, it seems that this call with CEO Lee Jae-myung may cause a reversal in the appeal trial by asking him why he gave perjury by calling Kim Jin-sung once again and how he was related to the perjury.

[Anchor]
So far, I've talked to lawyer Lee Go-eun, who was a prosecutor. Thank you for talking with me today.