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

Kim Jin-sung's four remarks are 'guilty'...a fine of 5 million won

Tribunal Deems False Testimony on 'Consultation to Confiscate the Juvenile'

Kim Jin-sung Admits Perjury After Call With Lee Jae-myung

[Anchor]
Lee Jae-myung, chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea, was acquitted in the first trial of the perjury teacher case yesterday.

In a 70-page ruling, the court detailed the reasons for the acquittal.

For more information, I'm connecting with a reporter from the legal team to find out. Reporter Kim Dahyun!

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

[Anchor]
The court acquitted Lee, who is accused of perjury, but convicted Kim Jin-sung, who was charged with perjury.

First of all, what kind of remarks did you see by Kim Jin-sung as perjury?

[Reporter]
The court judged six testimonies that Kim gave at Lee's 2019 trial.

Four of them were found guilty and two were found not guilty and fined 5 million won.

The four convicted remarks are intended to support Lee's claim that "former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS colluded to discuss Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit of prosecutor's impersonation."

The court judged that these remarks were "false testimony" contrary to Kim's memory.

[Anchor]
The prosecution says CEO Lee ordered this false testimony, but why did the court acquit CEO Lee only?

[Reporter]
The court admitted that Kim perjured himself 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'.

[Anchor]
The "record of the call" that reporter Kim mentioned was released through the media and others.There were also parts that the prosecution could have doubts about, such as

.

How did you judge this part?

[Reporter]
Yes, the court also said that some of Lee's remarks could be interpreted as a request for false testimony.One of the most representative remarks is

{You can just say you've heard that.'

The court saw room for interpretation that representative Lee asked for false testimony as if he had heard about what Kim did not know.

However, he said that there may be room for interpretation to the effect of "Let's hear and know what we know."

Since criminal trials require strict proof, it is believed that it is difficult to punish remarks that are interpreted in many ways.

[Anchor]
The prosecution said it would 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 after the phone call, the testimony was conducted closely until it actually took place.

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

So far, I'm Kim Da-hyun of YTN at the Seoul Central District Court.