What is the point of watching Lee Jae-myung's first trial sentence in violation of the Public Official Election Act?

[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung's first sentence of the Public Official Election Act is just a day away.

Representative Lee is accused of making false information to turn public opinion in his favor during the last presidential election.

Reporter Kwon Jun-su summarized what the key issue of this case is.

[Reporter]
The charges filed against Lee Jae-myung are false information under the Public Official Election Act.

The important issue is whether the representative's remarks are false, whether the remarks were aimed at winning elections, and whether what was said in broadcast interviews and parliamentary audits can be regarded as "public announcement."

The prosecution and representative Lee are arguing whether the remarks made during the last presidential election are false.

First, the prosecution will attend the seminar with CEO Lee and Director Kim Moon-ki,

I think we have a special relationship with golf travel on overseas business trips.

However, CEO Lee did not know Kim, and emphasizes that "knowing someone" cannot be judged objectively as it is a subjective area.

The same goes for the "Baekhyun-dong Threat" remark that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport threatened to change its purpose.Representative Lee argues that

'feeling pressure' is not false because it is subjective, but the prosecution believes that it distorted the facts because there was no request from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to change the use.

It is also important whether the next few remarks in question were aimed at winning elections.

Representative Lee says that it is just a simple "mistake of words" as he was spontaneously responding to complicated issues during broadcast interviews and state audits.

On the other hand, the prosecution said that as the related content became an issue at the time, it was possible to predict that suspicions would be raised and that there was enough time to prepare an answer.
Claims to have 'deliberately, actively, repeatedly' made false statements for the
presidency.

In addition, it is also an issue whether remarks made in broadcast interviews and parliamentary audits can be viewed as a 'public announcement' unilaterally announced.

How will the court judge the legal battle that has been going on for more than two years over these issues?

I'm YTN Kwon Junsu.

Video editing; Lee Ju-yeon
graphics; Lee Wonhee