Lee Jae-myung is sentenced to prison in the first trial...mixed feelings between the ruling and opposition parties

■ Host: Kim Sun-young Anchor
■ Appearance: Kim Ki-heung, former deputy spokesperson for the president's office, Jang Hyun-joo, vice chairman of the Minjoo Party's legal committee

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

[Anchor]
The first trial of Democratic Party Chairman Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act has resulted in a higher-than-expected sentence, causing a growing impact on the political sector. I'll talk to the two of you. We have Kim Ki-heung, a former deputy spokesman for the president's office, and Jang Hyun-joo, vice chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea's legal committee. Welcome. When we predicted the results of the first trial with various experts, there were mixed talks such as a fine of 2 million won or less than 1 million won, but not many experts expected a suspended sentence, but the Democratic Party of Korea seems a little embarrassed?

[Jang Hyun-joo]
Of course, I watched yesterday's sentence. I don't think anyone in the Democratic Party predicted that there would be a serious result of one year in prison and two years of probation. I also never thought that a serious brother like this would come out. Within the Democratic Party of Korea, the controversial remarks made by Chairman Lee Jae-myung did not fall under the legal requirements to the extent that they were determined to be guilty of false information under the Public Official Election Act, so there was a lot of expectation and expectation of innocence yesterday. However, compared to that, it is clear that the party is shocked and even angry because of the suspended prison sentence. However, since the Democratic Party of Korea will appeal more calmly, there are many things that the legal part of the appeal trial should be contested according to the legal part and done as an opposition party. This is the policy of pushing ahead with such things without a hitch.

[Anchor]
Yesterday, there were quite a lot of supporters and opposing rallies in front of the court. There was a prospect that Lee Jae-myung would deliver a lot of messages after the sentence. However, there seems to be an analysis that CEO Lee Jae-myung was also very surprised by leaving only a short message.

[Kim Gi-heung]
I felt like Lee Jae-myung had given up after the first trial ruling because he said, "There are two opportunities in the real court, and the court of sincerity and history is eternal." The final trial has not come out, but there is no need to do such things as history, court, or conscience. In the past, former Prime Minister Han Myung-sook said that she is innocent in a court of conscience and history, and in the case of former Governor Kim Kyung-soo, she will come back no matter how much she throws her conscience. In the end, it's a word to the supporters when the final decision is made. We have to unite as one, and after this, after the Supreme Council of the Democratic Party, we talked about political judgment, didn't we?

In the end, the shock to the first trial was so great that expectations for the second and final trials were lowered. Above all, I thought it would be a little unexpected to make such a statement while various trials are underway on the issue of perjury teachers on various charges and the first trial was predicted, but I was worried that I would continue this struggle through outdoor rallies for the majority of the numbers.

[Anchor]
After the ruling, the reaction of the ruling and opposition parties was largely mixed. Let's listen to it.

In the Democratic Party, this is a clear political judgment. And there seems to be a lot of talks within the party that there is still a lot of room to fight.

[Jang Hyun-joo]
That's right. As you said, CEO Lee Jae-myung also said that the first Ilsung is a judgment that is difficult to accept. In the end, there are clearly regrets that the prosecution was a little distorted from the facts, but those parts were not properly reflected. Therefore, we believe that there is room for dispute over various issues at the appeal trial. Specific issues will continue to be discussed later, but I think the party will continue to take additional positions on each of those issues. In particular, it was said that the position from the party responded to the political extermination initiated by the prosecution with a ruling. In the end, the Democratic Party of Korea is expected to maintain its unity for the time being, as it has once again expressed its position that the Democratic Party will respond firmly to attempts to remove political opponents against Lee Jae-myung through continued investigation and prosecution.

[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung said he will also participate in today's outdoor rally as originally scheduled. So, it's not like a period has been marked, but we're going as planned. It's an intention to show this, right?

[Jang Hyun-joo]
That's right. Yesterday's ruling was unexpected at the party level, so it is as true as there was a shock, but even so, the unified opposition remains unwavering at the party level. Since there is no change in the atmosphere itself, the opposition party should do what it has to do, especially regardless of the first trial sentence of representative Lee Jae-myung. In particular, in the case of today's scheduled outdoor rally, it is an outdoor rally that is judged to pass the Special Prosecutor Act on Kim Gun-hee and gather public opinion and public sentiment after the passage, so Chairman Lee Jae-myung expects that regardless of the sentence, he will come out as scheduled and that his remarks will probably come out.

[Anchor]
Regarding the Democratic Party of Korea's push for such an outdoor rally, Chairman Han Dong-hoon said, "Is the defendant intimidated by the judge today? It is the worst reason for sentencing. He left a comment like this.

[Kim Gi-heung]
I thought about what Lee Jae-myung and the Democratic Party would do when they were found guilty, but I am concerned that they are moving not much differently from my expectations. No matter how much they talk about it, there have been outdoor rallies for Lee Jae-myung's BTS, and in the end, it's a simple logic. We have no choice but to see that he has been doing this thinking that he should bring down the president before he is taken away. Then, if you think that there is a possibility of legal dispute and winning when the first trial is over, I will calmly go to muksanism, make the legal part a legal part, and you go to the National Assembly and make a bill for the people's livelihood, I knew it would be like this. It's not that, but I'm showing my critical survival instinct.

Most of all, what makes the Democratic Party sad is that Plan B has disappeared as it became a free-for-all and pro-life embezzlement through the general election and nomination process. There is no such space, and above all, don't you use the expression "water is one"? By the way, I became a member of the Myeong-Ah community by listening to Lee Jae-myung's name. That's why I can't say any difference. If you talk about differences, you become a traitor. The difference is that you can look at a problem differently and solve it differently. I don't think I'll see even a small gap like that. The fact that you're already too conscious means that you're opening a gap. I thought it was innocent in the Democratic Party, then a fine, but I personally had no choice but to get a prison sentence.

Why, isn't the false information that this person talked about very important? Regarding the suspicion of Daejang-dong and the suspicion of Baekhyun-dong, which can be called the second Daejang-dong, he burned the passage to himself. In the end, I don't think there is a problem with this, but looking at the current trial process and this series of situations, it is getting thicker that it is related to you. From that point of view, I think one year in prison and two years of probation are appropriate judgments.

[Anchor]
CEO Lee Jae-myung said he would attend an outdoor rally today, but it's inevitable that he's worried about how much the outdoor rally has gathered, right? [Kim Ki-heung] Why do I dwell on numbers? And if you think about sticking to the outdoor rally, isn't it a situation of being a little girl now? The Democratic Party is not the underdog. There is a saying that the president has power, but the power lies with the National Assembly. It's even more so at Yeosoya University. And it's not just a majority. It's over 170 seats. And since the representative of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party is in a similar position, I think we're doing it together, but together, there are more than 190 seats.

The National Assembly also controls the National Assembly, but why go to a rally when you are not even an underdog? We can carry out everything related to Special Prosecutor Kim Gun-hee. Then you can persuade the ruling party members. But what they do out there is that they made it in everyday terms, impeachment, which used to be imaginary language, beyond their imagination for impeachment of the president. Martial law is just a political offensive to bring down the president by throwing everything in hand. And if you put a political frame on this ruling through this ruling, I don't even know how the 2nd and 3rd trials will take place.

[Jang Hyun-joo]
If I add one more word, of course, I think criticism can be made about the outdoor assembly. As you said, the Democratic Party of Korea is a huge opposition party and the largest party in the National Assembly, so why do we have to come to the outside? Although it is a huge opposition party from the Democratic Party's point of view, it has repeatedly passed the Special Prosecutor Act on Kim Gun-hee, but there have been times when it has collapsed in front of the president's veto barrier. Therefore, there is a clear need for the president to call for the special prosecution law, which was passed last time, not to exercise his veto this time. That's why the Democratic Party of Korea has no choice but to go out of the court. I have to say that there is definitely a part of the president's accumulated abuse of veto power.

[Anchor]
Some of the Democratic Party of Korea seems to have this concern. In a way, representative Lee Jae-myung's recent move was to expand the center, but at a time when representative Lee Jae-myung's judicial risk has become more realistic, some are worried that continuing the outdoor rally is not a strategy to win the hearts of the middle class.

[Jang Hyun-joo]
I think I'll be able to hear that kind of voice. For the Democratic Party of Korea, apart from the results of Lee Jae-myung's first trial, the Democratic Party of Korea should do what it has to do and planned. Just because representative Lee Jae-myung's sentence came out serious does not mean that the special prosecution law against First Lady Kim Gun-hee can be suspended. Since this is a duty to the people as an opposition party, of course, the Democratic Party of Korea should do its best to pass the special prosecution laws against Kim Gun-hee, and in the process, an off-the-shelf rally is essential to gather public sentiment.

[Anchor]
We will take a closer look at the first trial decision of Lee Jae-myung, who came out yesterday. The content of the first trial's ruling is largely three-pronged. Regarding Lee Jae-myung's statement that the golf photo was fabricated, the court said it was guilty because it could be interpreted as meaning that he did not play golf. He was acquitted of this remark, saying that he did not know Kim Moon-ki when he was mayor of Seongnam. And he was found guilty of saying that the use of the Baekhyun-dong site was raised due to the threat of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. I think I should ask Vice Chairman Jang Hyun-bu about this, but Kim Moon-ki didn't know, this was the key. However, it was not a statement that was the core, but another statement was convicted. How do I look at that?

[Jang Hyun-joo]
As you said, the part that I did not know the late Director Kim Moon-ki when I was mayor of Seongnam is a subjective perception, so there was a dispute about whether that part would constitute publication of false information. Therefore, the prosecution refuted that this was not a matter of subjective perception, but that there was an act of communication with the late Minister Kim Moon-ki at the time. However, from the standpoint of the court, it did not even imply that it denied that there were acts of exchange amid this remark that he did not know the late Director Kim Moon-ki. That's why he was acquitted of that. Rep. Park Hyun-taek of the Democratic Party is also taking issue with this, but he interpreted golf-related parts slightly differently. So, what Lee Jae-myung said was that he made a statement to the effect that he had manipulated golf-related pictures or pictures from the people's power to make them look like they played golf. However, in the end, representative Lee Jae-myung's remarks were intended to have manipulated the facts, but judging from the judgment, the court eventually judged that the remarks on the photo manipulation were that he did not play golf with the late director Kim Moon-ki during an overseas business trip.

[Anchor]
Can you show me the picture in a bigger way? So, the golf picture. It's this picture right now. Lee Jae-myung said that this photo, which came out only with a small number of people, was fabricated. In the court, the statement that it was manipulated can be accepted by the public as not playing golf.

[Jang Hyun-joo]
That's right. Representative Lee Jae-myung's statement is that the photo was fabricated, and the court's statement means that this is interpreted as not playing golf in the end, given the circumstances and overall purpose of the statement that the photo was fabricated. That's why you can check whether you played golf or not, but it's a false fact because you actually played golf, so I thought you were guilty. In fact, from the Democratic Party's point of view, the remarks made by Chairman Lee Jae-myung were intended to the effect that the photo was fabricated. The court's broad interpretation of this and determining that he did not play golf is likely to be fiercely contested at the appeals court, and then there is a possibility that the result will be overturned in the process of the issue.

[Anchor]
This argument came out at the center of the Democratic Party's official briefing yesterday. I said the photo was fabricated, didn't I say I didn't play golf? It's a counter-argument. How did you hear that?

[Kim Gi-heung]
If I read the writing as it is, then-Governor Lee Jae-myung came out on the program and said, "The power of the people took a picture of four people and released it as if I played golf, but when I checked, some of the group photos of the whole group were taken off and shown like this. It was manipulated. I said this. If so, the court released a picture here as if I had played golf in the overall context, but I denied it and said that I had manipulated it, so I lied that I did not play golf. My first child took the college entrance exam yesterday. I asked him after it was over. So I looked at it, and they said, "Then this would be interpreted as playing golf."

So you don't have to do a literacy test to the people. Isn't there a context for this? In that sense, CEO Lee Jae-myung did not say that he played golf, but that the photo was manipulated, but he did not play golf. People have no choice but to interpret that it is irrelevant and contains such nuances. So for me, it's a matter of recognition when I go to the second trial, right? I was acquitted of the problem of perception, but if I look at it in reverse, how would you know when you didn't get into my head? It's like this, after all. It's not a god. Then, when I say that I don't know much about everything, I think that in the process of finding the truth, I have no choice but to judge who the person met, where he went, and what kind of communication he or she has through. From that point of view, I think a more serious brother can come out.

[Anchor]
Because each sentence is important like solving the Korean language test. Now, Kim Ki-heung, a former deputy spokesman, paid attention to this sentence as if he had played golf. How did you hear that?

[Jang Hyun-joo]
So, as spokesperson Kim said, "Is it a literacy test?" If you say that the interpretation may differ from person to person, you have to judge more strictly. Actually, this is not a Korean language question from the CSAT. It's a criminal judgment that decides whether or not to criminalize someone. In our criminal law, there is a principle of clarity, and when it is not clear, it should be in the interests of the accused. And it must be interpreted strictly, and if it is a crime of publicizing false information under the Public Official Election Act, there may be restrictions on freedom of political expression, so strict application will be necessary. If so, there should have been a strict application if it is an expression that is not obvious to anyone but can be ambiguous depending on how they see it, but I think there is a high possibility that the conclusion will be reversed because of the fierce argument at the appeal trial.

[Anchor]
So it seems that there are various interpretations from legal professionals. As for this issue, which Kim Moon-ki did not know, some believe that there is room for change at the appeal trial because the court's judgment is guilty and innocent.

[Kim Gi-heung]
As I said earlier, perception is usually an area that cannot be invaded. Then, the purpose of why he said he didn't know, and considering that, didn't the former Chief Kim Moon-ki say I didn't know, leading to the question after the death of such a person who said he was in charge of working in Daejang-dong? If so, you drew a line clearly about it. If you have a bridge in relation to the suspicion of Daejang-dong, you burned it. From that point of view, we have to look at it through context. For example, if I say I don't know our anchor, why would I say I don't know? We know each other. Isn't there a reason? But if the purpose was to avoid a certain crime, and if I ate with the anchor before, when I traveled, took pictures, or played golf, a third party said they didn't know for that purpose. If so, it can be seen as a publication of false information, and I think it can go at the second trial. Representative Lee Jae-myung is not an ordinary person. I'm a politician. And because he had the presidential election in mind, he has no choice but to know how much his words weigh.

If so, you might think there's something to avoid because you were a lawyer. But those things repeat themselves. What was the problem again this time was that you had a similar criminal record, right? in connection with false information What I want to say is that the Supreme Court was acquitted of forced hospitalization of his brother during a debate during the governor's term. But when he was innocent, he admitted that he lied and lied. However, since that is the situation of the debate, there was something unexpected about it in the Q&A, so I interpreted it broadly in terms of freedom of expression. But this time, I told you four times that I don't know former Chief Kim Moon-ki. And this time, the golf problem is that I talked about this in the fourth time. In the end, I think I have no choice but to say that I lied like this because I had an intention and a purpose.

[Anchor]
And another issue was the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's threat to change Baekhyun-dong's development utility, and the court found him guilty of this statement. According to the contents, there was also testimony from officials of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. How will CEO Lee Jae-myung object to that at the appeal trial?

[Jang Hyun-joo]
In this regard, the court decided that all of this was false on the premise that the change of use was Seongnam City's own judgment. In the case of what representative Lee Jae-myung described as a threat, he emphasized that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport continued to demand the change of use at the time and that the local government was forced to face considerable psychological pressure. I think these parts can continue to be a point of contention in the appeal trial, of course. In addition, yesterday's court judgment, regarding the National Assembly Testimony Appraisal Act, the original National Assembly Testimony Appraisal Act does not require disadvantageous disposition when testifying at the National Assembly. However, in this regard, the court judged that testifying at the inspection was a statement for the purpose of the inspection under the exterior.

However, in this case, there were quite a lot of questions from the Democratic Party of Korea at the time, and the National Assembly had to respond to the questions clearly, and the witness testified at the National Assembly. This part is questionable how you can conclude that this was a statement that had nothing to do with the purpose of the audit. Therefore, it seems that this part is also a matter to be considered by the appeals court. And the constituent requirements of the crime of publicizing false information are not just punishable by any false information. The qualifications and actions of candidates are listed like this. Since it is a limited enumeration, it is interpreted very strictly whether the part of the action was false. That's why the issue of whether or not you knew the late Director Kim Moon-ki was an issue. Likewise, in the remarks related to Baekhyun-dong, the part of the act eventually becomes that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport threatened. If so, he said false facts about the part that was not the act of candidate Lee Jae-myung, who was a candidate at the time, or about the other candidate. Even in this case, it seems that the appeals court will have to argue fiercely about whether it can be decided by Article 250.

[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung refuted that whether intimidation is actually a threat or not is subjective, and that if you make multiple requests, you can feel it as a kind of threat. How did you like this part?

[Kim Gi-heung]
I think I'm so comfortable with the world, self-centered. This was a problem because many people suspected Lee Jae-myung about the suspicion of preferential treatment for Baekhyun-dong development. However, this preferential treatment, so-called, has been raised to four levels. It's a natural green area, but it's a semi-residential area. Then it's a huge preferential treatment. They gave this huge preferential treatment to private businesses. In that regard, it turned out that Kim In-seop, the head of Seongnam City's predecessor, played as a lobbyist in Baekhyun-dong. And he received a five-year prison sentence and an additional 7.7 billion won at the appeal trial. The amount received was 7.7 billion won in cash, followed by 500 million won in Hamba business. What's wrong with her? And before recruiting him, a private company asked me to raise it by two levels, but I refused.

But after Kim In-seop went in, he did four steps. That's why there are suspicions. However, he said that the center of the suspicion was not himself, but the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport threatened him, so he did it because it was not just a matter of his feelings, but because he was threatened, so he had no choice. This is a lie. If so, you can't say that it's your subjective exaggeration. If you say that you're exaggerated and that you feel that way, you can't avoid everything if you say that everything is a feeling. So there was a purpose.

That's why we have no choice but to take it seriously. One more thing I want to say is that on this part, the Supreme Court's final trial will be held on the 28th regarding Kim In-seop. If the final trial comes out, if convicted, there is no choice but to have a stronger impression on the relationship between Lee Jae-myung and Kim In-seop, which is called preferential treatment, so there are a series of unfavorable rulings from Lee Jae-myung's point of view.

[Anchor]
As CEO Lee Jae-myung said, there will be two more cases left and another fierce dispute at the appeals court, but this is one of the reasons for yesterday's sentencing. He committed the crime to clarify the suspicions of Daejang-dong and Baekhyun-dong, and he is deeply guilty. That's what I said. And by publishing false information, it distorted the will of the people and undermined the essence of representative democracy. The court revealed the reason for this sentencing, what did you mean by this?

[Jang Hyun-joo]
I think the reason for the sentencing may have been more serious. The verdict will come out soon, but I think the verdict probably has its own reasons for why the sentencing was so strict. However, I think many people will sympathize with the fact that the publication of false information can distort the will of the people and undermine the essence of representative democracy. However, even so, I think there may be objections to whether the sentencing situation was enough to sentence the leader of the main opposition party to one year in prison and two years of probation.

And there has been a clear trend in politics and in the judiciary, at least in terms of political freedom of expression, and there has been a constant sense of problem with the election law. If so, it is important to strictly punish the crime of publicizing false information, but on the other hand, the value that freedom of expression in the election process and in the political field should be widely guaranteed is one of the things that must be guaranteed. Then, at the point where these parts conflict, there are many implications for what kind of judgment the judiciary should make and what sentencing should be given, and in that sense, I think it is a judgment that can be problematic.

[Anchor]
Since you're a legal professional, I'll ask you this. How long does it take to get to the Supreme Court? The appeal period is shorter than the first trial, right? How do you see the approximate duration?

[Jang Hyun-joo]
According to the original principle, there is a 633 law under the Public Official Election Act. So, the first trial is 6 months, and the appeals trial and appeal trial are 3 months and 3 months, so it is supposed to be completed within a total of 1 year. However, as you can see from the previous cases, in fact, 633 has not been properly observed in the Public Official Election Act as well as in the sentencing of representative Lee Jae-myung. Therefore, the first trial took more than two years, and of course, there were many issues and many witnesses, so the trial was prolonged. Depending on whether new witnesses will be added to the appeal trial or whether new evidence will be investigated, the time it takes to appeal will change a little.

[Anchor]
Finally, let's talk about the internal situation of the people's power for a while. When you appeared last time, I think I talked about the power of the people a lot about close conflicts. This time, the special inspector seems to have gathered his will a little faster after a long time. What do you think is the background?

[Kim Gi-heung]
First of all, the president does not connect with the so-called recommendation of directors of the North Korean Human Rights Foundation through a statement. You didn't say it explicitly, but you didn't say that you have to do it, did you? And on that day, when I looked into the atmosphere of the presidential office, it was that kind of atmosphere that they didn't connect. That's why I'm competing for votes during the broadcast, at the general meeting of the lawmakers. He said there is no possibility of such a vote and that his voice will lead to one. In the end, the president and representative Han Dong-hoon can look at the same line and the same place right away. This is the part where we can find a point of contact for the success of this administration, the people's livelihood, and the continuous development of the Republic of Korea. And we were beaten hard because we weren't good enough.

Since it's not such a free situation, you can think in a big frame and act in a big frame, and most of all, isn't representative Lee Jae-myung interpreting and strongly pressuring the first trial's ruling rather than accepting it? If so, what you have to do, you have no choice but to do it together because you have to firmly attack the political offensive on these areas. I think so.

[Anchor]
Do you think the single team will be maintained even if the special prosecutor Kim Gun-hee votes again?

[Kim Ki-heung]
is correct. There are many political intentions because it is only a third-party special prosecutor, rather than finding the truth, it is the same as the previous special prosecutor in the step of stepping stone for impeaching the president.

[Anchor]
I'll stop here with Jungkook's news. They were Kim Ki-heung, a former deputy spokesperson for the president's office, and Jang Hyun-joo, vice chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea's legal committee. Thank you.