[Issue Plus] 'Violation of Election Law' Lee Jae-myung, imprisonment... to appeal'

■ Host: Lee Yeo-jin, anchor Jang Won-seok
■ 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 News PLUS] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Lee Jae-myung, chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea, was sentenced to lose his seat in the first trial on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act. Let's take a look at the key issues of the first trial and the impact of the results with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Please come in. Unless you are a ruling party official, most of you usually expected a fine, but you were sentenced to prison. How did you like it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, wasn't the allegation of this case largely seen in two ways? First of all, the prosecution saw that the interview related to Director Kim Moon-ki during the interview with the broadcaster around December 2021 was a public announcement of false information, and the other was that there was a parliamentary audit of Gyeonggi Province around October 2021.

When the Gyeonggi-do National Assembly's Transportation Committee conducted a national audit of Gyeonggi-do, there was a story that Baekhyun-dong's Korea Food Research Institute was repurposed at the time, and the reason for the repurposing at that time was the threat of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, but this part is also a false announcement, and these two were criminal facts.

There are two charges against this, so one issue is how much of it will be recognized as false in fact, and if it is recognized, the issue is how much the sentence will be sentenced. Even a fine is considered a very important part because it is actually related to the right to run for election, but if it is sentenced to imprisonment and probation, it is a heavier sentence than a fine. Therefore, it seems that there is no choice but to say that the court has seen the case very seriously.

[Anchor]
The prosecution asked for two years. How much do you think it is compared to this?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, he served two years in prison, and isn't it one year in prison and two years of probation? If so, it can be said that the sentence itself has been reduced to half, but since it is not usually bound by the prosecution's sentence, as a result, it is necessary to see how much the two years of probation itself means in the court. Even if there is a suspension of execution, the court said that the case was considered a little serious because the suspended sentence was considered heavy anyway, and that the actual judgment process also said that.

The reason why the Public Official Election Act prohibits the publication of false information in this regard is that representative democracy is established through the election system for representative democracy, right? However, since it can be a factual relationship that can distort the will of the people of the election system, we need to look at this a little more closely. Since it is said to the effect that the court is correct, if it is a false fact, it should be considered very seriously. I think I saw it for this purpose.

[Anchor]
Today is the first trial sentence, but if this is confirmed by the Supreme Court, wouldn't it be impossible for Lee Jae-myung to run for president for 10 years?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. Article 226 of the Public Official Election Act restricts the right to run for election in this part if you are convicted of violating the election law and are sentenced to imprisonment or a fine of more than 1 million won. Therefore, if a sentence is sentenced to prison, there is a fine for 10 years after the end of the sentence, 10 years from the suspended sentence, and 5 years from the date of determination of the fine in the case of a fine.

Public service duties may be restricted depending on each period, and this is stipulated in the Party Act for party members. Article 22 of the Party Act restricts the party from playing a role as a party member if it is not possible to play a role as a party member if it is punished in connection with the Public Official Election Act. As there are talks about this, if the sentence is confirmed, there will be many changes to the Supreme Court.

[Anchor]
And I saw some of the charges of spreading false information related to the late Kim Moon-ki, which was one of the important parts. Let's take a look at the remarks that were problematic. What exactly is the problem in this part now?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As I said, isn't it that there was a false announcement about Director Kim Moon-ki in a broadcast interview around December 2021? But there were two main branches. One thing is that I didn't know Director Kim Moon-ki when I was mayor. There was this part. Another thing was that I never played golf that I just saw in the video. In response, the court considered it false that it did not know Director Kim Moon-ki when he served as mayor. In addition, I saw that it seems that he played around January 2015 on the part that he did not play golf.

If so, I thought that talking like this on the show could be regarded as a public announcement of false facts, so this golf part was convicted. I don't know, for this part, the Public Official Election Act is limited to the publication of false information. What is limited about is that if a candidate or his/her spouse, lineal ascendant, brother, and sister are supported by property, behavior, affiliated organization, specific person, or specific organization, they will be punished if they disclose false information. The fact that you don't know someone in itself is not clear which of the things I've just told you about here.

It eventually became an issue as to whether this could be seen as an act. If the prosecution claims that it does not know, it is to say that it has known Kim Moon-ki, former director of the Public Official Election Act, it means that the prosecution has to prove this part and that it could have been a legal issue, and if it does not see it as an act, it is not guilty of this just because it cannot be regarded as a public announcement of false information under the Public Official Election Act. But I played golf, I didn't play, isn't this an act of doing it? That's why he was convicted of this act.

[Anchor]
He is not guilty of saying that he did not know Director Kim Moon-ki, and he is guilty of false information that he did not play golf together. Nevertheless, he applied a blanket crime and saw it as a part of guilt. What is this comprehensive crime?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Even if there have been various criminal acts, if punishment is imposed as one crime, it is a comprehensive crime. Therefore, even in the case of this factual relationship, there are various crimes, but isn't it bound by a single ark of violation of the Public Official Election Act? Therefore, even if it is false, it is not guilty because it cannot be regarded as a crime of publicizing false information under the law, but this is a comprehensive crime and the rest of the part is convicted, so we do not sentence innocence separately.

[Anchor]
I heard you call this not guilty of reason.

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. Isn't it right for the prosecution to claim the facts in this part of the law? Nevertheless, if this content of the law is inevitably innocent in interpretation, in this case, it can be expressed as such depending on the expression.

[Anchor]
Also important, I thought it was a false fact to say that he was threatened by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for his job abandonment in connection with Baekhyun-dong's remarks at the National Audit Office. What was the basis?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Regarding this, the Baekhyun-dong site itself was the site of the Korea Food Research Institute at the time, but the use was raised to the semi-residential area at once. If that happens, the business feasibility will be very good and the business profit will be high. However, the issue was whether there was any preferential treatment in this regard or whether there was preferential treatment for changing this part in Gyeonggi-do Province, and Lee Jae-myung, the governor of Gyeonggi-do Province at the time, threatened to the effect that if he did not comply, he could be punished for dereliction of duty.

In this regard, the court reviewed and talked about various situations, and overall, it should be seen as something done by Seongnam City and Gyeonggi Province, but the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport did not see it as doing this. If the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport announced this part even though there was no such threat or coercion, it could be a false announcement, so is there any act of talking about this part as well? At this time, I was threatened, not threatened. Wasn't there an act? That's why he was convicted on this part.

[Anchor]
I think the second trial's ruling has become more important because he has now expressed his will to appeal, but is there a chance that this will be overturned as innocent in the prize money trial or will fall below the fine of 1 million won?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the end, even if there is a judgment of the first trial, it is not attributable to the appeal or appeal, is it? The appeals court will make a new judgment, especially in this case, and in the case of criminal cases, it can be viewed in three branches. One is to admit the facts, but there are cases in which they argue about the law, and the other is to admit the facts, but there are cases in which the sentencing is to be contested. This part can be severely punished or something like this. Another thing is that they deny facts and deny legal principles.

In this case, there are claims that there was no false information about the recognition of facts, and even if there was such a fact, it is said that it does not constitute a crime of publicizing false information, so there are many issues that can be judged differently in the appeal trial and can be judged differently from the appeal trial. Therefore, I think it is right to view today's judgment as a reference to the fact that this is a definitive judgment or that the court can continue to judge it like this. Rather than looking at it like this, the judicial risk of representative Lee Jae-myung has become a little bigger, and that the first trial court, which passes in the middle, has grasped the entire facts like this.

[Anchor]
When we explained earlier, we explained that if it is confirmed by the Supreme Court, the parliamentary seat will be lost or it will be impossible to run for the next presidential election. If so, I've expressed my intention to appeal, and I'm also curious about how long it will take for the Supreme Court to rule beyond that.

[Kim Sung-soo]
If you look at Article 270 of the Public Official Election Act, it's 6 months, 3 months, and 3 months. In the case of public official election cases, in fact, it's meaningless if it becomes invalid after the term expires, right? Therefore, there is a mandatory regulation that the trial should proceed quickly. However, this regulation itself has been in place since the past. However, if we look at the case under the Public Official Election Act, we rarely get 6 months, 3 months, so I think it will take a little longer for this case, and hasn't there been a case where representative Lee Jae-myung was tried in the past regarding the publication of false information?

So, there was a case where the Supreme Court was acquitted, and at that time, it took about three months for the first trial to be sentenced and the appeal trial, but it seems that it took almost a year for the appeal to be judged. The year has passed. Therefore, even in this case, even if it is sentenced, how long this period will take in the appeal trial and appeal trial may increase depending on legal issues or disputes.

[Anchor]
It took two years and two months for the results of the first trial to come out. How much do you expect, pending a final ruling?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think the presidential election in 2027 could actually be an issue, but even if it is delayed a lot, I think a final judgment will be made before 2027. However, as I said, I think there may be some real difficulties in expecting a sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Public Official Election Act of six months, three months, and three months.

[Anchor]
And another thing, the Democratic Party is likely to have to return the 43.4 billion won it received. Is there a legal basis for receiving the compensation amount?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. This is also in Article 265-2 of the Public Official Election Act. In this regard, if you are convicted of a violation of the Public Official Election Act, there is a regulation that requires the recommended party to return the amount preserved or returned for this part in the presidential election. Therefore, in this case, if the Democratic Party of Korea is found guilty, the amount that the Democratic Party of Korea has to return amounts to about 43.4 billion won, so it seems that the Democratic Party of Korea is also very economically burdened in this regard.

[Anchor]
What do you think the outcome of today's trial means?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As I said, it is a first trial sentence, so we have to wait and see what will happen in the appeal trial and appeal trial. However, isn't it a case where you have a lot of curiosity about sin in the first trial? Because this is a very important event. Therefore, it was possible to see the opinion that the facts would have been grasped like this in the first trial, and this part is not necessarily attributable, so it is enough to refer to the overall situation to the extent that the judgment was made in the first trial, but I don't think this should be distorted as if it were a final judgment.

[Anchor]
The court said the crime was quite heavy. In the meantime, he explained that freedom of expression is important, but the distortion of the public that may occur by publishing false information during the election process should be considered. Considering freedom of expression and distortion of the people, I think you put more emphasis on the latter side here, how did you analyze it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As you said, in the case of freedom of expression, isn't it a basic right under the constitution? Therefore, this part can be very important, but in the case of a crime of publicizing false information, the purpose itself is to be elected in a very important election called a public office election, and if the person who talks about false information is elected, in the end, I thought about what kind of person this person is, but can't my public opinion on this part be distorted?

In the end, the election is made through the will of the people and the election is made. Therefore, the first trial judged that the crime of publicizing false information in this regard should be considered seriously because it is a part where we elect our representatives through elections and express our opinions through this.

[Anchor]
Isn't there currently four ongoing trials regarding representative Lee Jae-myung? Today's first sentence came out. Isn't the first trial scheduled for the perjury teacher charge on the 25th? How do you expect that?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As you said, there is also a perjury teacher case on the 25th. In this case, CEO Lee Jae-myung has been tried in the past over impersonating a prosecutor. And there was a person who came out as a witness at the time of the trial, and the prosecution claims that representative Lee Jae-myung instructed the witness to tell him about the witness examination to this effect, and the representative Lee Jae-myung argues that there is no such fact, and even if this exists, it is not a perjury teacher. Also, if such an act can be viewed as a teacher of perjury. Teachers themselves can have a wide variety of legal interpretations, so this is something to watch. In this part, since it is the first trial, how the sentence of the first trial will come out cannot be seen as a final decision in the end, but it can be seen as an important part, so we need to wait and see how it will be judged. I think it's a little hard to predict.

[Anchor]
What's hard to predict is that the sentence in violation of the Public Official Election Act is much more serious than expected today, so I wonder if it will affect the outcome of the trial on the 25th. The prosecution has demanded a three-year prison term, so how much do you expect?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the case sentenced today and the case on the 25th are completely different, so it is difficult to see how today's sentence affects the sentence on the 25th. However, since there was a three-year sentence related to this part, if the court is guilty, there is room for the court to take this part seriously, so perjury itself is a very important part because it can distort the court's judgment. Therefore, if perjury teachers are recognized, I think the sentence of the sentence related to this part can be quite high.

[Anchor]
What happens if you are sentenced to more than imprisonment in this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In this regard, if a sentence of imprisonment or higher is sentenced, restrictions on the right to be sentenced will inevitably occur, and if so, if convicted and confirmed, there will be changes in the overall form of the party. If the first trial ends up being sentenced, it seems that the risk can be viewed more seriously.

[Anchor]
In fact, if you are on trial for perjury teacher, is this often convicted?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of perjury teachers, the perjury itself is proved, and even if the teaching of this part is clear, it is usually prosecuted, so if a perjury teacher is charged, he is often convicted. However, in this case, aren't there various issues that cannot be considered guilty even if they are currently fighting for facts and are prosecuted in this regard? Therefore, we have to wait and see on the issue, but it is usually a little difficult to conclude that the perjury teacher is guilty just because the conviction rate is high, and we have to wait and see the results of this part.

[Anchor]
The possibility of today's trial was also discussed, but the court did not allow it. Is the perjury teacher's case possible?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of perjury teachers, they will make a decision after reviewing the comprehensive part, but I think there is a high possibility that they will not broadcast live in the same way as this time. When broadcasting live, there are parts where I think that I was concerned about various problems, accidents, or such, so the court may make a different judgment on that, but I personally expect it to be similar to this time.

[Anchor]
Many people gathered in front of the Seoul Central District Court today, so how will the judge's personal protection proceed?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think the court will do something about that. Since there is no choice but to receive attention in many ways, so it seems that there is no clear report on what measures have been taken by the relevant courts, so we need to wait and see.

[Anchor]
CEO Lee, we'd like to mention this before.Ma has two more trials on the Public Official Election Act today, perjury teacher on the 25th, and please explain the details of the trial in detail.

[Kim Sung-soo]
There are two more incidents. In one case, wasn't there another suspicion of preferential treatment in Daejang-dong? And the other is Seongnam FC donation, which is proceeding as one case, and the other case is the twin-drop remittance case to North Korea. That's why it's becoming an issue of whether they were involved in that part as well. In the case of Daejang-dong, the first trial is underway, and it seems that the period of specifying various witnesses and facts continues.

And in the case of the Ssangbangwool case, there is a date called the current trial preparation date, and there is a date to decide how to proceed before the trial proceeds. So, as the trial preparation period continues to proceed, the preparation period is almost complete in this regard, so I think it will soon be transferred to the trial date.

[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung's first trial was sentenced today for violating the Public Official Election Act, and yesterday, was Kim Hye-kyung, the wife of Representative Lee Jae-myung, also sentenced for violating the Public Official Election Act? A fine of 1.5 million won came out, how did you see it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of Kim Hye-kyung, it was considered a violation of donation under the Public Official Election Act because she ate with the wives of former and current lawmakers and paid about 100,000 won for the meal. And it is true that the controversial part about this was the payment, but isn't there another Bae who is very close to Kim Hye-kyung? I thought it was very important to see the facts because Mr. Bae

said he did it himself and Kim Hye-kyung did not know about it, but the court said that Kim Hye-kyung seemed to condone or tolerate Mr. Bae's actions, so in the end, he was sentenced to 1.5 million won because he thought Kim Hye-kyung was also responsible for the donation.

[Anchor]
Then Kim Hye-kyung was fined 1.5 million won, but in the current situation, what is the impact on the Public Official Election Act?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, if it is sentenced to more than a certain amount or more than 3 million won, it can be invalid if it is elected in the party's election. However, the primary itself cannot be an issue because the term of office and such are already over. However, if a fine of more than 1 million won is sentenced and confirmed, a person who does not have the right to vote will not be able to campaign. Therefore, when representative Lee Jae-myung appears in a certain election in the future, he cannot campaign as a person who does not have the right to sentence, so there seems to be a change in that area.

[Anchor]
There is also a prospect that the prosecution's investigation into the alleged misappropriation of corporate credit cards in Gyeonggi Province will gain momentum with Kim Hye-kyung's ruling yesterday.

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. As I told you, whose intention was to pay about 100,000 won? This was the issue. The card used at this time is the Gyeonggi-do corporate card. However, it now seems that the Gyeonggi-do corporate card was not provided to Kim Hye-kyung, but was Lee Jae-myung's card. If Lee Jae-myung's card was used in a part that was not related to the work of Gyeonggi-do Province, the investigation is underway because it could be embezzlement or breach of trust to the corporation. If the facts are specified and recognized, the prosecution's investigation could be accelerated because it is more likely to be admitted to the charges of misappropriation.

[Anchor]
Then, is there a possibility of additional prosecution of Representative Lee Jae-myung, who was the governor of Gyeonggi-do at the time?

[Kim Sung-soo]
For that part, first of all, who used the card? And it is necessary to see if there is any acceptance of this to the person concerned and whether representative Lee Jae-myung can be prosecuted in this part together. However, since the facts are still being specified, it seems that the prosecution will depend on the specific facts.

[Anchor]
If you take a closer look at the contents, in 2018 and 19, CEO Lee and Kim Hye-kyung, who were the governor of Gyeonggi-do Province at the time, privately misappropriated the budget by making Bae pay for personal food such as sandwiches and fruits with a corporate card in Gyeonggi-do Province. The prosecution is investigating these allegations. If this is admitted, what kind of punishment would you get if you were indicted and admitted?

[Kim Sung-soo]
If this part is viewed as a charge of embezzlement or breach of trust under the criminal law, this case can also be viewed very seriously. However, it depends on the amount of damage. Therefore, the degree of punishment may vary depending on the amount of the gain, so the degree of punishment depends on how far the facts are specified. As you said now, there may be fruits and such, but when determining charges of embezzlement or breach of trust, the part that is not directly related to Gyeonggi-do is added to the overall period.

Then, depending on whether the total amount itself is limited to the amount you just mentioned or higher, the prosecution will be made first, and the criteria for punishment can vary greatly depending on how far the court recognizes the facts of the nomination, so we need to see what the prosecution will be like.

[Anchor]
In connection with the case, the prosecution notified Lee and his wife of the summons in July, and Kim Hye-kyung appeared at the prosecution on September 5, but refused to make a statement and returned home in about two hours. How will it proceed after that?

[Kim Sung-soo]
If you refuse to make a statement and do not attend in the case of a suspect or reference in relation to such an investigation, isn't there any other physical evidence in the prosecution? There will be data to compare this, such as the card usage history, what happened at the time, and what work happened in Gyeonggi-do, so if there is a part that is difficult to write such a record, I think we will first prosecute it and then review the interrogation in the process of arguing the facts in the court.

[Anchor]
But the court said this yesterday. I mentioned a murder without witnesses. Do you know why?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think the case you mentioned was referring to the case where the evidence or this part is not clear, or how to acknowledge the facts in this case. I don't know for sure because I didn't hear the sentence myself. That's why I think that's the purpose. In that case, wasn't there a part in this case that eventually became a dispute over various facts? In the recognition of such facts, in the case of such a murder case, there was a case where the court made such a judgment, so I think he claimed that this part can be applied to this case.

[Anchor]
What do you think Kim Hye-kyung's side will use as the basis for refuting the appeal now?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of Kim Hye-kyung's case, the issue itself seems to have been a very important fact that he did not know about using the card in the end, so he is expected to argue again about the facts. And aren't you thinking that you've accepted the facts in the end? The court also believes that there was acquiescence or tolerance rather than direct order from Kim Hye-kyung, so the appeals court will also dispute whether there is room for interpretation that can only be seen as acceptance or acquiescence of the facts currently recognized. Even in this case, the judgment may eventually vary in the appeals court and appeal depending on the legal interpretation, so we will have to wait and see how it is confirmed.

[Anchor]
However, in this case, the donation was recognized and became a problem. By the way, is the use of corporate credit cards not a problem in this case? Is it okay for the spouse to use the corporate card?

[Kim Sung-soo]
If this part was also used by the spouse himself, of course, it could lead to an issue of embezzlement or breach of trust because it is a corporate card misappropriation. In this case, it was an issue about who used it directly, and the court's judgment that there was tolerance or acquiescence was not directly paid, but through it, and it was considered that it was tolerated or acquiesced in other people's work.

Therefore, if the facts can be clarified about the act of tolerating or condoning, and if the intention itself becomes to the extent that the doctor using the corporate card itself can be considered Kim Hye-kyung's own intention, it could be an issue of embezzlement or breach of trust. If not, it is important to specify the facts first because it is not confirmed by the prosecution because the first trial ruling alone has not been confirmed. So I think we need to see what the established facts become.

[Anchor]
Will this ruling be commuted more or will the fine be lowered when it goes to a higher court? What do you think of it in this regard?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As mentioned earlier, this part will also be independently judged by the appeals court and appeal regardless of the judgment of the first trial, so each part is expected to be viewed differently depending on the court. It seems a little difficult to predict in the current situation, whether the sentence is reduced or the guilt is different.

[Anchor]
Earlier, we asked about the murder without witnesses, but I think the statement of Cho Myung-hyun, a public interest reporter who exposed the suspicion of misappropriation of corporate cards in Gyeonggi-do Province, at the time of the police investigation is almost the only evidence. I heard that Cho's professional skills that conveyed other people's words cannot be used as evidence unless the defendant agrees to use it as evidence.

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of professional statements, the ability to testify can be an issue. Professional statements are a case in which three people say that this happened in the mouth of another person. If so, just because this person says this, it is not possible to prove that objective facts were as he said, so in the case of professional statements, the ability to testify can be an issue, and in this case, the court's judgment has become an issue.

[Anchor]
We've talked about allegations and spouse Kim Hye-kyung in relation to representative Lee Jae-myung's trial. For the viewers who turned on the TV, shall we briefly summarize today's ruling?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of today's sentence, it is related to CEO Lee Jae-myung's crime of publicizing false information. There were two major scandals related to the crime of publicizing false information, one about whether he knew about the late Director Kim Moon-ki at the time of December 2021 and whether he played golf, and the other about the preferential use of the site of the Korea Food Research Institute in Baekhyun-dong. However, the court's first trial court in this regard considered that the overall statements themselves were false. Among them, I didn't know the late Director Kim Moon-ki, and this part is considered to be false, but there is a part where I judged that I was innocent under the law because I could not convict unless it could be regarded as an act under the law of the crime of publicizing false information. Regarding the fact that he didn't play golf with the late Director Kim Moon-ki, isn't it clear that he played golf because it seems to be true and that he played golf again and did not play golf?

That's why he was convicted, and the story that there was a threat from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport at the time regarding the Baekhyun-dong site was false. This part is also two parts of being convicted because it is clear as an act of intimidation or not.

[Anchor]
If this sentence is confirmed by the Supreme Court, representative Lee will lose his parliamentary seat. In addition, it has been impossible to run for president for 10 years, and the Democratic Party of Korea received 43.4 billion won in last presidential election reserves, which must be returned. So when do we have to pay it after the final judgment, the Democratic Party?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As for the part of having to return 43.4 billion, it seems that it is not clear about the period under the current Public Official Election Act. However, if this part of the bond is generated, we will have to wait and see because we can talk about how to execute it in the process of proceeding with this bond and even review the seizure. Since it's not a common case, I think there are many variables in how it will proceed.

[Anchor]
I see. Today, I pointed out with Representative Lee Jae-myung, who was charged with violating the Public Official Election Act, and lawyer Kim Sung-soo, who was sentenced to probation in prison in the first trial. Thank you.