[New Square 10] Lee Jae-myung's first trial of "Perjury Teacher"...Second Judicial Risk Fate Day

■ Host: Anchor Park Seok-won
■ Appearance: Yoon Ki-chan, Vice Chairman of the People's Power Law Committee, Attorney Seol Ju-wan

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 10AM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party of Korea will be put to the judicial risk test again in 10 days. Attention is focusing on the results as political repercussions are expected following the first trial of perjury teacher charges. Let's talk in detail with two lawyers, Yoon Ki-chan and Seol Ju-wan. Please come in. First of all, if we go back to the starting point of today's alleged perjury teacher, we should look into the prosecutor impersonation case first, but this is the case 22 years ago, right?

[Seol Joo-wan]
is correct. So, in 2022, it was just Lee Jae-myung's time as a lawyer because it was a prosecutor impersonation case. It was during a civic movement in Seongnam. At that time, the mayor was suspicious of a sale, and he helped Choi Chul-ho, then a KBS PD, in the process of reporting to clarify this, and what he is explaining is that the PD is asking a question, so it's a bit difficult to say that he is an impersonator, but he told me.

However, there was a case where he was fined 1.5 million won for impersonating a prosecutor or false accusation, and he was falsely accused of helping to impersonate a PD in the process of explaining this at the election candidate debate in 2018. So, because of this, the spread of false information under the Public Official Act, the same charge that happened not long ago, and you will be tried on that charge. During the trial, the charges of the perjury teacher were revealed last year, leading to the first trial sentence this time.

[Anchor]
Since there are about two trials, there are a lot of things to point out and a lot of things to go back to, but you've explained what you're talking about now. Is there anything to point out here?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
There are actually three trials. Impersonating a prosecutor who received 1.5 million won before, that is, impersonating a civil servant. If you look here, I got a final decision. And then the Public Official Election Act in 2008, in 2018. It was the Gyeonggi-do governor's election. At that time, he was being tried for the publication of false information. Next, this perjury teacher's trial. In the end, when you are being tried for false information in the Public Official Election Act case, please tell Kim Jin-sung, who was involved at the time, like this. At that time, Mayor Kim Byung-ryang consulted with KBS and instructed them to give such testimony as if they were driving Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit. You're on trial for these charges. However, from the prosecution's point of view, and from the point of view of Representative Lee Jae-myung, I only asked him to tell me the truth at the time, and thus denied the allegations.

[Anchor]
It started with the case 22 years ago, but there is a recording that the prosecution secured as evidence of the perjury teacher case four years later, why it is controversial now. Let's listen to the recording and continue with your opinions.

[Lee Jae-myung / Governor of Gyeonggi-do Province at the time (last 2018): Just as it is, time has passed anyway. (Well, it's been so long that even the memories.... ) I'll send you a summary of your argument. (Yes, you can do that. It was our captain, so please remember it.]

[Lee Jae-myung / Governor of Gyeonggi Province at the time (last December 2018): I think it would be helpful if you could tell me that this was an event with a very political background. As it is. (It's been so long that even memories...). )]

[Anchor]
You just heard the call. Representative Lee Jae-myung's side says what it is, it seems to be focusing on this side, and the prosecution seems to be helping, what do you think?

[Seol Joo-wan]
So if you hear from the phone call, Kim Jin-sung is an accomplice who is confessing to perjury. In the case of Kim Jin-sung, who is a regular criminal, he keeps saying that he can't remember well. But Lee Jae-myung just heard about it.It's an event with a political background, and it's a part that tells you to recall this part even though the years have passed. So, what CEO Lee Jae-myung is claiming is to tell me as it is, and there is a phrase asking me to tell you what I remember, if you look at the 30-minute-long gun.

However, while putting forward such things, they say that it is not perjury, and in the prosecution, perjury is the establishment of perjury when the person who perjured falls in love with memory. So whether what you say is true or not, that's not the point. Isn't it instilling memories now because it is perjury to talk about what you remember in the past, contrary to your memories? In that sense, it is argued that perjury teachers will be established, so I think the main issue of today's ruling is where the court will focus more on the argument between the prosecution and the defendant Lee Jae-myung.

[Anchor]
What do you think, lawyer? As you said now, I asked you to tell me what you said, but the prosecution seems to be thinking that there will be more pressure.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
This is a witness requested by the defendant at the time Lee Jae-myung. If you are a prosecution witness, you will see it from a different perspective, but this is a witness that you applied for because you needed it, but you probably did not appear once. I'm asking for attendance again, and this is usually okay. Please come out. Come out and do what you remember as it is, and it's okay if it's over here. But if you look at what you've given me now, I keep saying that this is what I know and instilling memories. You're not supposed to do it like this. And you can't send the summary like that. The sending itself is a perjury teacher. Lastly, we say this to Kim Jin-sung.

Kim Byung-ryang is also dead. So, what's in the testimony at that time is that Mayor Kim Byung-ryang told Kim Jin-sung at that time that he was in agreement and consultation with a high-ranking KBS official. So the person who said it is dead. Then, even if Kim Jin-sung lies here, there is no one to reveal that the lie is a lie. Mayor Kim Byung-ryang said it. That's why CEO Lee Jae-myung also says that, and Mayor Kim Byung-ryang died. So in the end, even if you're perjury, it's hard to reveal the perjury afterwards. So I personally don't know how the court will judge, but if I were a judge, it would be difficult to escape the charges of perjury.

[Anchor]
But if you look at the recordings we heard earlier, it's only a few seconds. They say that it's what it is and that it will be helpful, but CEO Lee Jae-myung claims that if you listen to the entire 30 minutes of the call transcript, there is something different from this short one. It's about the prosecution's squeezing. Let's listen to this position.

[Anchor]
Earlier, lawyer Yoon said that the attempt to send the summary of the argument itself is suspected of perjury, but now CEO Lee Jae-myung says it is not the case if he hears all 30 minutes. What do you think?

[Seol Joo-wan]
So I'm asking you to make a judgment while looking at the overall context. As we just saw on the screen, CEO Lee Jae-myung didn't ask us to reconstruct the case or tell you something that goes against the memory, so the phrase comes out. It comes out in between. How to interpret that part. I think the court will show today as a ruling on which part of the judgment will deny the intentionality of not giving perjury. However, as a lawyer, I think that the fact that he fabricated or woven evidence is an expression of unfairness on the part of CEO Lee Jae-myung. Because we said we had a meeting, we played a 30-minute recording in court and all the calls we heard earlier.

Since I've played the original itself, I personally don't think the court will accept the fabrication of evidence or the weaving of some evidence. So, regarding that part, if the contents of the call are pointed out that the original file has been edited or rather pointed out, there is a possibility of manipulation if it has been edited. If you've agreed on editing when you can leave out words that don't have anything, or if you can remove unfavorable words, the recording file of the call has been touched, given that there was no controversy about it in the first trial, and I don't think it was artificially manipulated by anyone, looking at it now. So, I think some evidence manipulation or something like this is an expression of Lee Jae-myung's unfairness.

[Anchor]
He said that the court should pay more attention to the results of today's trial than to the claim that representative Lee Jae-myung is a piece of cake because the court hears the original anyway. One of the issues of perjury teacher charges is how Kim Jin-sung's testimony at the time would have affected the trial, and did this matter?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
We're going to investigate the evidence before that, and the original transcript was probably submitted as evidence. An excerpt summarizing the original version was probably presented as an additional transcript for the judge's convenience, and the original version is played when we investigate the evidence. You have to play it and verify it to be recognized as evidence. That's why CEO Lee Jae-myung's remarks about evidence manipulation are inconsistent. Then, of course, the purpose of acknowledging innocence in the Public Official Election Act at that time was that it was an expression of opinion that I was framed, not an expression of fact, so it was not applicable to the Public Official Election Act. However, if you go further, there may be a basis for the judge's comfortable judgment. It's because Kim Jin-sung comes out and says a lot of things that seem to be framed.

If KBS becomes a party, former Mayor Kim Byung-ryang will be a little too much, so let's drive it to Lee Jae-myung. These testimonies come out. If so, it would have helped the court to form a conviction that seemed to be innocent, regardless of whether it was true or not. Another thing that can be considered true is that he was falsely accused of helping impersonate a prosecutor, helping impersonate a prosecutor. Helping is a fact. Therefore, the point is not whether it is a false accusation, but whether or not you helped impersonate the prosecutor. In fact, you said this yourself. However, the court seems to have used this for convenience and comfortably when writing the purpose of innocence.

Conversely, if Kim Jin-sung did not testify, there was a possibility that he would be guilty, so wouldn't CEO Lee Jae-myung have tried twice to hear the testimony by requesting a witness? If it was a really meaningless testimony, why would they ask for it and call him about three times to testify? Given these various circumstances, I think the probability of being convicted would have been quite high if this person did not testify.

[Anchor]
It had some effect. Because if you look at the trial process of Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act, at that time, in 2019, he was innocent in the first trial and fined 3 million won in the second trial, but he was finally acquitted in the Supreme Court sentence. In the process of overturning this ruling, he said, "Did the testimony have an effect? This is the part where lawyer Yoon must have been." What about lawyer Seol?

[Seol Joo-wan]
So I don't think there would have been a direct impact. This wasn't an issue at the time. In this case, the most controversial part of the trial due to the announcement of false information by the governor of Gyeonggi-do at the time was the most overturned part in relation to the forced hospitalization of the sentence. Of course, Kim Jin-sung's perjury at the time may have had an indirect effect, even if it is not a decisive requirement, so how will this part be judged? Because there is a weighting factor in the crime of perjury, and one of the weighting factors then how much did the perjury itself affect this trial? This is very important. But will this be seen as a weighting factor in that regard? So, there are general weighting factors and special weighting factors, but I think it may be a little difficult to see this as a special weighting factor today, but overall, it just takes into account the situation, so I think it may have some influence on the purpose of the overall judgment.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
However, whether it affected the trial is one of the reasons for the aggravation, but similarly, one of the reasons for the weighting of the same class is the presence or absence of economic considerations. However, in connection with this case, Kim Jin-sung was once requested for an arrest warrant and rejected. If you look at the details of the charges at that time, there is also one charge of participating in mediation related to Baekhyun-dong. In fact, it is difficult to say that this part has nothing to do with representative Lee Jae-myung. Because it was a rental work. Then there is another charge of 70 million won in mediation in connection with Seongnam City's contract signing at the time. This part is not guilty or not guilty, but it is for the reason of requesting a warrant, so if the court sees it, it is difficult to conclude that there is no economic price or that it is not connected, that part is also a aggravating reason. So the trial court's testimony as to whether it affected the trial, and then whether it was directly or indirectly linked to the economic price. I think all of these will be related to whether or not there is a reason for weighting.

[Anchor]
One of the reasons why the reason for the aggravation is important is that if there is no aggravated charge, the sentence will be less than 1 year and 6 months, and if there is a aggravated sentence, it will be up to 3 years, right? The prosecution asked for three years, the maximum. Lawyer Seol predicts that if the aggravated charges do not apply this time, the prosecution's sentence will not come out, right?

[Seol Joo-wan]
The basic sentence for perjury now ranges from 6 months to 1 year and June, and from October to 3 years when it is aggravated. However, the prosecution continues to have aggravated reasons. There is no reason for the reduction. But the most important thing in the reason for the reduction is serious reflection. So, the part where I admit my guilt and confess this part is the reason for the commutation, but it is difficult to use it as a reason for the commutation because representative Lee Jae-myung continues to plead not guilty. However, the position of opposition leader cannot be any reason for the commutation. I can take it into consideration.

In that regard, the status of the opposition leader or something like that does not affect judicial judgment. However, if there is a reason for aggravation in this regard, the perjury teacher, that is, usually the perjury teacher, is punished more seriously than the perjury person in the crime of perjury. I'm putting it as a reason for the weighting. Because a perjury teacher is a bad view of the fact that a perjury teacher has made someone who does not have to perjure through a teacher. Therefore, if the perjury teacher himself is found guilty, I can be sentenced within the range of 10 months to 3 years as a reason for aggravation, but I think the sentence will be set between October and a year, if he or she is found guilty.

[Anchor]
There is a possibility of innocence, but if convicted, it will come out for about 10 months. Kim Jin-sung, who claimed that he was handed over to trial. He said he lied himself. Does this part not affect the trial?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
So it's a confession. If you asked Kim Jin-sung for October, but he confessed, you can't be guilty just by confessing. There must be proof of reinforcement. The reinforcement evidence is the recording file. So there is a possibility that this could be found guilty, and if Kim Jin-sung is not guilty, CEO Lee Jae-myung is not guilty. However, Kim Jin-sung admitted that he testified against my memory, but there are not many reasons to impeach him for testifying against my memory.

For example, no matter what excuse Lee Jae-myung makes, he testified that this is different from the facts, which makes it easy to prove, to impeach. However, it is difficult to escape unless Representative Lee Jae-myung gives an impeachment reason that the confession was wrong because he confessed that he did it differently from my memory. Another thing is that there are many reasons for weight reduction, but there are not many reasons for reduction. That's why it's hard to put on probation, but if we look at the purpose of the legal reduction, if we look at Article 39 of the Criminal Code, it's a case that would have been tried at the same time, but one case is confirmed first.

Then, the next case will be mitigated. However, the Public Official Election Act was actually a case in 2021 or 2022, but it was decided first, even though it was the first trial. However, the perjury teacher case took place in 2018 and 2019. We should have been tried together. In that case, I can reduce it. Because of the reason for the reduction, I also think about October to a year, so a prison sentence of that level, that is, a prison sentence without probation, is sentenced. Of course, I think the results of such a trial that does not involve legal detention will come out.

[Anchor]
So even if you're guilty of the possibility of innocence like lawyer Seol, you're considering it less than 10 months old, right?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I think it's more than 10 months.

[Anchor]
Please explain in detail why you think it's more than 10 months.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
As I said earlier, this is a reason for aggravation, and I will bring down the sentence in accordance with Article 39 of the Criminal Code. So the reason why there is a prison sentence and there is no probation is that if you try to sentence a probation, there should be a reason for sentencing. For example, you don't have confession or self-reflection. The motive for the crime is also very personal because he tried to maintain the governor of Gyeonggi-do. Then the means of crime, it's not good. Putting all these things together, I don't think we can put a probation. Then, he will be sentenced to prison, but I personally predict that the sentence will be that high for the reason I mentioned earlier.

[Anchor]
Ten days before representative Lee Jae-myung, he was sentenced to loss in the first trial for violating the Public Official Election Act, and now faces another judicial risk with his second trial. I've pointed out some legal interpretations, but what kind of political blow will it be?

[Seol Joo-wan]
If he is found innocent, he will be able to greatly lighten his shoulders for Lee Jae-myung, but it is true that the possibility of guilt is higher than the possibility of innocence under the current situation. I can't say it's 100% yet.Ma is in a difficult situation to be optimistic, but even if he is found guilty, I don't think there would have been this much impact on the sentence, especially in the case of the last Public Official Act, if he was a fine. However, it is very rare that prison sentences come out under the Public Official Election Act, and it is a very heavy sentence. However, in the case of this case, if you are fined, it will have a lot of impact on representative Lee Jae-myung's current status that he will continue to run in the election.

However, if a sentence of about a year and a half, for example, or more than a year and a half, I think it would be a very heavy sentence. If that's the case, I don't think there will be any political turmoil in the Democratic Party for a while. The reason is that in the past, when Lee Jae-myung was governor of Gyeonggi-do Province, as we saw earlier, he was innocent in the first trial, guilty in the second trial, and acquitted in the third trial. Because of such a history, I think it will be a factor to strengthen the centripetal power within the recognition that we have to wait until the final trial, but this has been the first trial for a very long time. The collinear method has been done for more than two years, and this case has been going on for a very long time. If so, it can be said that most of the things that needed to be proved in the first trial were done.

Then, it seems that the second trial will proceed as soon as possible, and like the case of the Public Official Act, the perjury teacher draws attention because the structure of the case itself is simple, so the third trial comes out as soon as possible. Since there is a possibility that it could come out before the presidential election, I think Chairman Lee Jae-myung will see some political moves within the Democratic Party of Korea after seeing that and the Supreme Court's final ruling.

[Anchor]
You said that the case is attracting more attention because it is simple, but the reason why it is attracting attention is that the court sees this case more strictly than the sentence of the Public Official Election Act. How do you see it today?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I expect the sentence I expected earlier, but depending on the sentence, the position of representative Lee Jae-myung in the future varies considerably. For example, if there is a suspended sentence, it comes out two years a year. Then CEO Lee Jae-myung may not appeal. There's a presidential election on March 3rd, 2027. Then, you only have to restore your right to run until March 2, 2027, but if the ruling is made today, it will be two years a year if you get a suspended sentence. Then, if you don't appeal right away and it's confirmed, this will take effect two years ago. Then, the right to run for election is secured. However, if there is a three-year probation per year. Then you can't do that.

If the probation is issued in this way, will Lee Jae-myung continue to fight depending on how long the probation period will be, or will he give up his appeal and go toward protecting the right to run for election? So whether you go to early recovery, you'll have different thoughts about this, and of course, there's no room for prosecutors to appeal. This is because if we are deprived of the right to run for election after receiving a imprisonment sentence and it becomes effective, we do not have the right to run for election until it becomes effective. But if you get a suspended sentence, the probation period is excessive, right? Then the sentence of the sentence becomes invalid. It becomes the same as the effect. So after two years, the right to run for election is restored. Therefore, depending on where the starting point of the two-year period is placed, Lee Jae-myung's control in the party may vary. So it might result in giving up the appeal.

[Anchor]
I think it would be good to pay attention to that part and watch the results of the trial today. So far, we've been with two lawyers, Yoon Ki-chan and Seol Ju-wan. Thank you.