■ Host: Anchor Na Kyung-chul, anchor Lee Se-na
■ Starring: Lawyer Park Sung-bae, lawyer Lim Joo-hye
* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.
[Anchor]
The screen is going out right now. The sentence for representative Lee Jae-myung is expected to come out soon. Representative Lee Jae-myung was sentenced not guilty in the first trial. Democrats were even seen cheering in front of the court.
[Anchor]
We can also gauge the results of today's first trial sentence from the expressions of the Democratic Party lawmakers who were waiting in front of the court. There was a breaking news that CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was accused of perjury, was acquitted in the first trial. As expected, the sentence seems to have come out in a very short time.
[Park Sung-bae]
As there is only one prosecution, it does not seem to take long to explain the reason for the relevant judgment and to recite the order, but when an acquittal is declared, the form of the judgment is different from that of the conviction. It's different. In the case of conviction, it explains why he is guilty and orders following the judgment on sentencing, while in the case of acquittal, the prosecution reads part of the prosecution's indictment and refutes why he is innocent one by one. I explained that the fragmentary phrases that were coming out now are the reasons for the judgment to acquit some of the perjury teacher charges, but the final judgment that they are innocent seems to have concluded that there is no act of teaching in this case. Among the two major issues that Lee Jae-myung claimed, which are not teachers and not the intention of perjury, it is not the intention of perjury. In other words, it seems that he did not judge the claim that it was not a statement against his memory at all and ruled that he was not a teacher in the first place.
[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung was acquitted in the first trial of perjury teacher charges. I think CEO Lee Jae-myung will appear a little later. As he is innocent, it is expected that he will reveal his position in front of the camera. Looking at the contents of the court now, it has not been decided whether or not to testify at the time of the call. And even if you look at Kim Jin-sung's testimony individually, it cannot be seen as a perjury teacher. These are the things that are being delivered.
[Anchor]
The court's remarks continued to be delivered to the effect of innocence. The court judged that the preparation of the witness examination with the lawyer lacked evidence that representative Lee Jae-myung was involved. Even if we gather all these testimonies, it seems that representative Lee Jae-myung's innocence has now been decided by combining these details. There are a lot of prospects for guilt right now. What do you think about this judgment?
[Lim Joo-hye]
In this part, if you were acquitted, I think the direction could have been completely different depending on how you interpret the call. Looking at the details of the call, the court seems to have seen that it cannot be interpreted as the purpose of asking Lee Jae-myung to speak just because he mentioned some statements about the direction he wanted. So if you tell me that you heard, it's good to say that you heard this fact, this collusion, or remarks aimed at driving me to be a criminal, and even if there was a list like this, even if there was a conversation like this, this itself did not force Kim Jin-sung to make a statement according to the content. I think that's how I saw it.
And it seems to have been emphasized that it was a legitimate exercise of defense rights. Lawyers can also ask for favorable witnesses to testify, such as favorable or unfavorable witnesses. In the process, I may not be able to give you a guide to some extent, but in terms of mentioning these parts, Lee Jae-myung did not give a guide to any testimony in terms of the exercise of defense rights, but he did not teach you the direction he wanted. I think I focused on these parts. [Anchor] Democrats cheered outside the court at the news of their innocence. There is news that Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won, but the person who gave perjury was fined 5 million won, and CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was accused of perjury, was acquitted.
[Park Sung-bae]
It is a fairly unusual ruling, and the prosecutor is expected to appeal immediately today, but Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won when he was found guilty. Above all, as long as the prosecution was admitted from the early stages of the trial, it seems that he was fined despite some guilty pleas. Above all, however, Kim Jin-sung has insisted that he would not have made such a statement without Lee Jae-myung's request, so Kim Jin-sung is expected to continue to object to much of the part where perjury was not recognized by Lee Jae-myung.
Above all, even though Kim Jin-sung's statement itself was a false statement against his memory, the reason why Lee Jae-myung demanded the statement itself was not against his memory or even a teacher. If you make a statement as you remember it, and if you don't remember it properly, I will send it to you because the related pleading summary, that is, the pleading summary related to your trial, is well organized. Recall the viewing memory and state the evoked memory, it is now possible to evaluate that you did not see it as a teacher. Teachers can be said to be teachers who promise to provide any benefits and demand to make related statements, but not only did they not reach that level and did not deviate from the scope of certain arguments, but above all, Lee Jae-myung, who was also a lawyer at the time, is presumed to have made a call with a logic that can be defended to some extent because it could be legally problematic.
[Anchor]
You said it was unusual, but what's the reason for it being unusual? This kind of judgment.
[Park Sung-bae]
Where the abettor and the abettor are charged as co-defendants, the abettor is found guilty, but the abettor is found not guilty.
[Anchor]
Wait a minute. While talking, CEO Lee Jae-myung appeared. It came out amid the cheers. Let's hear what you're saying.
[Lee Jae-myung / Minjoo Party leader: Thank you to the court for bringing back truth and justice. The process is very difficult and long, but it's a part of the Changhae family, and the difficulty I have is only about one narrow rice in the big sea, isn't it? Compared to the difficulties our people face, I think the difficulties I face are minimal. I would like to say that I will do my best for the better life of our people in the future, and I hope that politics is not about killing and stepping on each other, but about coexisting and going with each other. Rather than killing politics, let's do politics that saves people, I want to say to the government and the ruling party. Thank you.]
[Anchor]
You can hear supporters chanting Lee Jae-myung's name.
[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung expressed his gratitude to the court for restoring truth and justice. And even though the process was difficult, isn't there a saying that it's a part of the Changhae family? He also said that it is insignificant compared to the difficulties and suffering the people face.
[Anchor]
Politics should not kill and step on each other, but should be politics that coexist and go together. So if you tell me that you heard, it's good to say that you heard this fact, this collusion, or remarks aimed at driving me to be a criminal, and even if there was a list like this, even if there was a conversation like this, this itself did not force Kim Jin-sung to make a statement according to the content. I think that's how I saw it. And it seems to have been emphasized that it was a legitimate exercise of defense rights. Lawyers can also ask for favorable witnesses to testify, such as favorable or unfavorable witnesses. In the process, I may not be able to give you a guide to some extent, but in terms of mentioning these parts, Lee Jae-myung did not give a guide to any testimony in terms of the exercise of defense rights, but he did not teach you the direction he wanted. I think I focused on these parts.
[Anchor]
Democratic lawmakers cheered outside the court at the news of their innocence. There is news that Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won, but the person who gave perjury was fined 5 million won, and CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was accused of perjury, was acquitted.
[Park Sung-bae]
It is a fairly unusual ruling, and the prosecutor is expected to appeal immediately today, but Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won when he was found guilty. Above all, as long as the prosecution was admitted from the early stages of the trial, it seems that he was fined despite some guilty pleas. Above all, however, Kim Jin-sung has insisted that he would not have made such a statement without Lee Jae-myung's request, so Kim Jin-sung is expected to continue to object to much of the part where perjury was not recognized by Lee Jae-myung.
Above all, even though Kim Jin-sung's statement itself was a false statement against his memory, the reason why Lee Jae-myung demanded the statement itself was not against his memory or even a teacher. If you make a statement as you remember it, and if you don't remember it properly, I will send it to you because the related pleading summary, that is, the pleading summary related to your trial, is well organized. Recall the viewing memory and state the evoked memory, it is now possible to evaluate that you did not see it as a teacher. Teachers can be said to be teachers who promise to provide any benefits and demand to make related statements, but not only did they not reach that level and did not deviate from the scope of certain arguments, but above all, Lee Jae-myung, who was also a lawyer at the time, is presumed to have made a call with a logic that can be defended to some extent because it could be legally problematic.
[Anchor]
You said it was unusual, but what's the reason for it being unusual? This kind of judgment.
[Park Sung-bae]
Where the abettor and the abettor are charged as co-defendants, the abettor is found guilty, but the abettor is found not guilty.
[Anchor]
Wait a minute. While talking, CEO Lee Jae-myung appeared. It came out amid the cheers. Let's hear what you're saying.
[Lee Jae-myung / Minjoo Party leader: Thank you to the court for bringing back truth and justice. The process is very difficult and long, but it's a part of the Changhae family, and the difficulty I have is only about one narrow rice in the big sea, isn't it? Compared to the difficulties our people face, I think the difficulties I face are minimal. I would like to say that I will do my best for the better life of our people in the future, and I hope that politics is not about killing and stepping on each other, but about coexisting and going with each other. Rather than killing politics, let's do politics that saves people, I want to say to the government and the ruling party. Thank you.]
[Anchor]
You can hear supporters chanting Lee Jae-myung's name.
[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung expressed his gratitude to the court for restoring truth and justice. And even though the process was difficult, isn't there a saying that it's a part of the Changhae family? He also said that it is insignificant compared to the difficulties and suffering the people face.
[Anchor]
Politics should not kill and step on each other, but should be politics that coexist and go together. He also said to the government and the ruling party, "Let's do politics that save people rather than killing politics."
[Anchor]
As the rallies of progressive and conservative groups continue around the court, I think it's a point to stop by here to see what messages they will leave. Lawyer Park was explaining the reason why this sentence was unusual earlier. Please continue.
[Park Sung-bae]
When an accomplice is charged as a co-defendant, some complicity is not recognized and some are acquitted.E is very rarely found not guilty because the offender is charged with the relevant charges, but the teacher is not charged with the relevant charges. It can be said to be a rare sentence, and above all, the reason why the court came to this judgment was speculated not to be a teacher's act. If it did not reach the teacher's act, at least from Lee Jae-myung's point of view, the statement requested from Kim Jin-sung at the time came to the judgment that Lee Jae-myung's memory was not against him. From the court's point of view, it seems that Kim Byung-ryang, the former mayor of Seongnam, decided that there was such an atmosphere, even if it was not a public offering to drive Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit instead of canceling the lawsuit against KBS PD Choi Chul-ho, but without such a premise, it is difficult to judge that Lee Jae-myung's demand was just a normal demand.
On the fact that there was such an atmosphere, the witnesses involved testified against CEO Lee Jae-myung.Ma stated that the KBS union's predecessor, who mentioned earlier, had such an atmosphere, and even if the conspiracy was not clearly proved inside the claims and some of the evidence presented by Lee Jae-myung, such an atmosphere was formed to some extent. For former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang, it was necessary to target Lee Jae-myung rather than the media company, and for KBS, it is possible that this atmosphere was formed because it was a better option to accept the cancellation of some of the charges as long as they were suffering from related reports. Because it has reached this level of judgment, it seems that it has been possible to judge that this level of demand is not an act of teaching.
[Anchor]
Earlier, lawyer Park is expected to appeal the prosecution right away. You said that you will appeal today, but what counter-argument do you expect the prosecution to make when it comes to the first trial's acquittal?
[Lim Joo-hye]
The offense and defense has changed, I think it can be evaluated like this. Since the acquittal came out, appeals from the prosecution are expected to inevitably follow. Considering the weight of what the prosecution initially demanded, it asked for three years, which can be considered the highest sentence. However, this time, the prosecution seems to have no choice but to lead the case to an appeal trial because the ruling came out as completely innocent, that is, innocent. As pointed out earlier, Kim Jin-sung, who actually testified like this at the court this time, was sentenced to a fine, but there was perjury.
However, although there was perjury about whether Kim Jin-sung did this voluntarily or what he did as a doctor, the prosecution seems to have no choice but to attack this part because it believed that the person who asked for it was not charged with perjury. First of all, there is a person who perjured, and there was no need to perjure while the intention, purpose, or profit from it was not confirmed. Nevertheless, if he perjured, this part was Lee Jae-myung's teacher. The prosecution seems to have no choice but to refute this part through an appeals court once again. It can be evaluated that going to the appeal trial is a natural step from the prosecution's point of view.
[Anchor]
The prosecution asked for three years, but the court acquitted him in the first trial of perjury. Let's listen to CEO Lee Jae-myung's remarks regarding this.
[Lee Jae-myung / Minjoo Party leader: Thank you to the court for bringing back truth and justice. The process is very difficult and long, but it's a difficult thing for me to experience as a part of the Changhae family, isn't it just one narrow-necked fish in the big sea? The difficulties that our people face compared to the pain, I think the difficulties I face are minimal. I would like to say that I will do my best for the better life of our people in the future, and I hope that politics is not about killing and stepping on each other, but about coexisting and going with each other. Rather than killing politics, let's do politics that saves people, I want to say to the government and the ruling party. Thank you.]
[Anchor]
Let me summarize once again regarding the acquittal of CEO Lee Jae-myung on charges of perjury. Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was handed over to trial on charges of abetting testimony in favor of trial witnesses, was acquitted in the first trial. The Seoul Central District Court acquitted CEO Lee, who was charged with perjury today. However, Kim Jin-sung, who was charged with perjury, was fined 5 million won because some testimony was recognized as perjury.
[Anchor]
After the sentence, CEO Lee Jae-myung expressed his gratitude to the court for restoring truth and justice. I also said that I will do my best for a better life for the people. And after the sentence, supporters of the Democratic Party and Democratic Party members cheered and shouted the name of Lee Jae-myung with a bright expression. Representative Lee was put on trial in October last year on charges of demanding false testimony from witnesses when he was indicted on charges of publicizing false information in connection with the so-called prosecutor impersonation case in 2018. The prosecution demanded a three-year prison term, the maximum sentence under the sentencing standards, saying that representative Lee's pressure led to false testimony in court and that he was acquitted. On the other hand, CEO Lee has pleaded not guilty, saying, "I just told you to make a statement as you remember." In the first trial, the court acquitted representative Lee Jae-myung. [Anchor] We're looking at the explanatory data of the court, and lawyer Park, first of all, Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won, but he was partially found guilty. So which part is guilty and which part is now judged innocent?
[Park Sung-bae]
Kim Jin-sung was partially convicted even though he fully admitted to the indictment. When he was partially acquitted, he was fined 5 million won, but he was acquitted by dividing the total amount of his remarks into 6 parts and removing 2 parts. As I mentioned earlier, there was an atmosphere to drive CEO Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit. That's the part. The part that there was an atmosphere seems to have stated the fact that Kim Jin-sung himself remembers as it is. Other facts have been convicted to the effect that they appear to have perjured their memories.
[Anchor]
How much punishment can a fine of 5 million won be considered?
[Lim Joo-hye]
Considering the basic perjury, there seems to be ample room for consideration if a fine was sentenced. Considering the fact that perjury is treated somewhat heavily, the court's reason for sentencing the defendant Kim Jin-sung was considered to be guilty of perjury for testifying as if he knew the facts against his memory and the facts he did not know. However, he was fined considering the circumstances that he acknowledged and reflected on this part, although the guilt of this part and the obstruction of the judiciary is heavy. For this part and the part that recognized the part where he was reflecting, it can be said that he was sentenced to a fine because it served as an advantageous factor.
[Anchor]
In the end, Kim Jin-sung, who is said to have perjury, was found guilty and fined 5 million won, and Lee Jae-myung, who is said to have been a perjury teacher, was found not guilty. Have there been cases like this before? How do you see it?
[Park Sung-bae]
I think it's rare enough for me to look for cases. In particular, it seems uncommon for the actor to declare some acquittal despite the full admission of the prosecution, and when an arrest warrant is requested during the investigation process, the judgment is based only on the prosecutor's unilateral claims and evidence, but several witnesses have testified in the process of conducting the hearing, and some suspicion seems to have been formed in the process of judging by mixing arguments and data from both sides in the process of the defendant's rebuttal and submission of additional data. Kim Jin-sung acknowledged the fact that there was a certain atmosphere even though Kim Jin-sung admitted the charges in general, and Lee Jae-myung asked for a statement, but he seems to have decided that he did not reach the level of demanding that statement by reviving memories that were not beyond the usual level of argument.
As the prosecutor has broken down some of the premise that the matter itself was false, it is quite shocking for the prosecutor, and it is expected to focus more on proving that such an atmosphere has not even been formed through an appeal trial. Furthermore, Kim Jin-sung was partially convicted, and Kim Jin-sung would not have made such a statement without the request of Lee Jae-myung. It is expected that the prosecutor will strongly argue at the appeal trial that Lee Jae-myung should be recognized as perjury teacher as long as he is found guilty of such a statement without Lee Jae-myung's request, whether the reason for making the statement was the expectation of unilateral profit provision or fear of Lee Jae-myung, who was elected governor of Gyeonggi Province.
[Anchor]
Regarding today's sentencing of representative Lee Jae-myung, it was reported that the court's issuance of a telephone call and pleading summary was difficult to regard as a perjury teacher. There was also a judgment by the court that Lee Jae-myung could not be considered to have been intentional by the teacher. So, in a way, intentionality was pointed out as a big issue in this sentence, but in this part, it cannot be said that it was intentional.
[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. I think this is a very important part. First of all, it was intentional to go over the mountain in the first stage and the first stage in order for the perjury teacher charge to be admitted. So, only when the intention to teach perjury is recognized can the crime of perjury be established, but the court saw that CEO Lee Jae-myung had no intention of perjury. If you look at the evidence, first of all, there is no evidence that Representative Lee Jae-myung directly intervened in this testimony. Therefore, I think it can be seen as one part of this that there was no intention.
And the intention is to make a statement to Kim Jin-sung as he remembers after talking on the phone several times, and at the time of this call, Kim Jin-sung did not know what purpose he would testify, so he cannot teach perjury to anyone who may make a statement in this regard. That's why I think I'm emphasizing this part that there was no intention. In particular, Kim Jin-sung may give perjury later or perjury. Since such unnecessary intention cannot be confirmed, the fact that representative Lee Jae-myung does not have the intention of perjury against the defendant Kim Jin-sung seems to have played a very important role in making a judgment of innocence this time.
[Anchor]
It was when Lee Jae-myung was indicted for this perjury teacher case when he discovered a recording file of the call, but in the end, the call itself, that is, what the court said, is no different from the usual request for testimony. It was a normal request for testimony, saying, "So please testify." So it's not about testifying like this, it's about testifying. That's how the court decided, right?
[Park Sung-bae]
In fact, it is quite difficult for CEO Lee Jae-myung to give a reasonable explanation regarding the fact that he was framed as he was convicted of impersonating a public official. If so, we have no choice but to find someone close to this case and know the situation in general and ask him to make a related statement, but from the perspective of the court, it was just that much. It was not a request to cross the line to tell facts that did not exist, and although the final judgment was made at the time, there was something that could be unfair from the defendant's point of view, and it only reached the level of finding a person who knows the relevant facts and asking that person to make a related statement. The only thing that has delivered the summary of the argument itself is the summary prepared by the lawyer who organized it, so try to recall your memory while delivering the summary of the argument. In the process, I think I made a statement as I remembered it, and judged that it was only at this level of demand.
And once again, according to the explanatory data of the court, Kim Jin-sung's guilt and innocence are completely differentiated. As for the guilty part, it is completely guilty that there was a consultation between former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS to drive CEO Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit. However, there was an opinion in the election camp of former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang that Lee Jae-myung should be driven as the main culprit so that he can be clearly arrested, that is, it is innocent that there was an atmosphere. In other words, the court judged that the atmosphere was actually there, and if there was such an atmosphere, there was such an atmosphere or consultation as it demanded relevant testimony. It seems that the demand that the degree can be told has not reached the level of unreasonable demand to state facts that are not beyond the usual pleading activities.
[Anchor]
The court judged that there was actually such an atmosphere, right?
[Park Sung-bae]
Even if it's not a consultation.
[Anchor]
The court just told us about the authenticity of the remarks, but if you look at the prosecution's position earlier, the prosecution judged that CEO Lee Jae-myung urged perjury, such as sending a summary of his argument to Kim Jin-sung, and that CEO Lee asked for false testimony in his favor. So, the prosecution asked Kim Jin-sung, who said he couldn't remember well, for three years in prison, believing that Lee Jae-myung demanded perjury as if he were injecting him, but the court's judgment was different. He was acquitted at the first trial. So, the authenticity and intentionality of the remarks in relation to this sentence, and whether the remarks can be considered to have induced the act of perjury. These were the issues, but which part of the court's judgment was the most important?
[Lim Joo-hye]
As you said, the prosecution asked you to tell me what you remember, and the part where you sent the summary of your argument is an injection into a certain memory. The prosecution has argued to the effect that it was to tell us as it is. However, the judgment of the court was different. Regarding Kim Jin-sung's testimony, Lee Jae-myung was right to ask for a witness in a situation where he needed to testify. In the process, Kim Jin-sung is not remembered properly. As for the part that he said he was not sure, at least Lee Jae-myung has not specifically informed or guided him to testify, and the part that provided the same part of the summary of the argument is usually like this.
It seems to be a very important part that the court judged that just by letting the other person know that my one-sided position is like this, it cannot be seen as a part of asking me to speak as it is or to speak to my advantage. Therefore, there have been several times when Kim Jin-sung was asked to tell him the summary of the defense statement as delivered by Lee Jae-myung or as he remembered it, but at least then it would be good to tell him that you heard this, and exercise the right to defend yourself in relation to the part he said. Therefore, from the standpoint of representative Lee Jae-myung, it was a remark that could be made while requesting witnesses at a level that could be sufficiently made. Therefore, from the standpoint of CEO Lee Jae-myung, there was no intention of perjury teacher. So it's innocent, this logic seems to have been established now.
[Anchor]
The contents of the facility supporting the judgment of the court are being delivered. There was a story that Kim Jin-sung requested explicit testimony only for matters that he did not clearly deny. There was also a story that Kim Jin-sung did not ask for testimony about what he did not know or deny. So, the interpretation of the part where Lee Jae-myung said, "Please tell me as soon as the representative of Lee Jae-myung is present" was very different, but the interpretation of Lee Jae-myung and the prosecution was different, but the court seems to have seen this as it is. It's like that, right?
[Park Sung-bae]
In response to the prosecution's request to make a statement as it was, Kim Jin-sung said, "I don't remember the situation at all, but I repeatedly asked him to tell me as he was and to tell me as he was, so it was a process of injecting certain facts." He saw himself as a perjury teacher. However, according to the contents of the call at the time, the court's decision is only to ask for some kind of communication between former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS, or to talk about the overall flow, the atmosphere, or the stories, and does not exceed the usual request for testimony.
Moreover, Kim Jin-sung seems to have been aware of the atmosphere at the time, but since he said he could not remember the situation at the time, it seems that providing a summary of the situation at the time itself does not go beyond the scope of ordinary pleading activities. In particular, the reason for the ruling is not explicitly stated in the fact that there is no fact that there is a critical request for a testimony, and there has been no exact request for a certain text, and above all, there has been no temptation, such as threatening or providing certain benefits when the court demands such testimony.Ma seems to have been the basis for the acquittal. If so, it can be evaluated that the defendant has come to an acquittal based on the interests of the defendant.
[Anchor]
In fact, there were many observations that expected fines 10 days ago when the Public Official Election Act was sentenced, but I was surprised once that the suspended sentence of the prison sentence came out, and many predicted that a fine or a prison sentence would come out today, but I was acquitted. The sentence continues to be wrong as expected. The prosecution will immediately appeal the perjury teacher's sentence today, what do you think about the possibility of the ruling being overturned in the second trial amid these predictions?
[Lim Joo-hye]
Of course, the first trial has just been sentenced. That's why it seems to be a matter that has no choice but to go to the Supreme Court. It's not over until it's over, but the first trial ruling has a very important meaning. We have no choice but to evaluate that in the first trial, both sides have already submitted all the data and arguments they can present and fought with all their might. Since the direction of the first trial eventually has a great impact on future trials, both sides must have already submitted all the evidence they can give. In addition, the data that can be presented by witnesses and these parts are rulings that were obtained by opening up a general offensive, so in fact, the meaning can be significant.
However, since the prosecution has been judged on Lee Jae-myung, who is not guilty at all, which falls far short of what they demanded, Kim Jin-sung was finally found guilty of perjury at the appeal trial. Only the part where there was an atmosphere was considered not against his memory, and only that part was considered innocent, and the rest of the specific statements were admitted as perjury, so why did Kim Jin-sung give perjury? Was there such a reason to give perjury even though there was no benefit to anyone's request or the person himself? It seems that the purpose of innocence can be overturned only when the prosecution proves these parts, focusing on whether there was Lee Jae-myung's involvement in the process.
Anyway, it can be seen as the starting point of this fight, but in the second trial, it can be seen that it begins with innocence. Therefore, it is expected to be a very important issue in changing the judgment in the second trial to present additional evidence to prove that the perjury teacher was intentional about the logic put forward by the first trial, especially the representative Lee Jae-myung. [Anchor] After today's acquittal, there is news that those who attended the support rally, so supporters, shouted for representative Lee Jae-myung. In addition, some of the lawmakers who were with us were also caught in our reporters shedding tears. As such, the ruling came out from the perspective of the Democratic Party of Korea, which can compensate for the impact of the Public Official Election Act 10 days ago, so what do you think about the possibility of being overturned in the second trial?
[Park Sung-bae]
There's a good chance that it's going to flip. The reason for this is that when the trial proceeds, the first trial, appeal trial, and Supreme Court rulings are often mixed even with the same data. There is a possibility of making a different judgment on the same data, and the prosecution's point of view is that the perjury teacher is right, as explained earlier in the appeal trial, and Kim Jin-sung is expected to actively protest that there is no other reason to commit perjury without unreasonable demands from Lee Jae-myung, as long as he has already been convicted in the first trial. Above all, the court did not view Lee Jae-myung's behavior as a teacher's act, which was a request to explain the overall atmosphere at the time, but it was accepted as true that there was an atmosphere between former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS that such a story could come and go.
The prosecution has been conducting various arguments on the premise that such facts are completely false, and as long as the first trial court accepted the fact that there was this atmosphere as a fact, it is expected to do its best to prove further to break the facts. The court is quite reluctant to call back witnesses who have already appeared as witnesses in the first trial at the appeal trial. The prosecution would say, "Do we need to call it again?" But if there are witnesses who have decided that they do not need to call it in the first trial, the appeals court will actively summon it as a witness and defend that all the facts themselves are only false.
[Anchor]
If I ask you one more question, from Kim Jin-sung's point of view, CEO Lee Jae-myung has been found not guilty. And it was recognized that he perjured himself. If Representative Lee Jae-myung is found guilty, will it affect his sentence? Is there a possibility that the sentence will be reduced a little if I say that I'm perjury because of someone?
[Park Sung-bae]
In this case, CEO Lee Jae-myung was acquitted, and the circumstances that he cooperated with the discovery of the actual relationship in this case, regardless of the guilt or innocence of CEO Lee Jae-myung, seem to have been fully reflected as a reason for sentencing. Kim Jin-sung's fine is unlikely to be lowered even if CEO Lee Jae-myung is convicted at an appeal trial. If the first trial of the case is found not guilty, or if representative Lee Jae-myung is convicted of perjury, and the ruling is confirmed by the court, he was found not guilty of publicizing false information under the Public Official Election Act in May 2018 for his remarks at the Gyeonggi Province governor's candidate debate, that is, his false accusation. This ruling itself is not subject to a retrial.
A retrial is possible when the evidence of the original ruling is proven to be false or the testimony of the original ruling is found to be false. Even if a retrial is possible, a retrial can be re-opened only for the benefit of the defendant. In other words, there is no retrial to convict the accused who has been found not guilty again. If the conviction was sentenced in the first trial of the perjury teacher in this case, it would have served as a more serious weighting factor for CEO Lee Jae-myung. Considering that perjury has already had some impact and has been found not guilty, and the reality relationship cannot be overturned by a retrial, a more serious sentence should have been sentenced. The prosecutor's view would be exactly the same, but since the acquittal was declared innocent, the sentence is not the problem, but I have to do my best to prove the perjury teacher conviction as representative Lee Jae-myung.
[Anchor]
The ruling and opposition parties are now responding while they were acquitted in the first trial regarding the perjury teacher charge. First of all, it was reported that the Democratic Party of Korea will hold a closed meeting of the Supreme Council members at 4 p.m. today. Rep. Kim Yong-min is said to have said that President Yoon, who fabricated and suppressed the case, should apologize and resign.
[Anchor]
The power of the people is being opposed. It's a disappointing ruling. The party's position that the appeals court should be watched came out. In addition, Rep. Park Jung-hoon responded fiercely to the crime of perjury teachers and to get rid of it from the criminal law.
[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung was acquitted in the first trial of perjury. What other trials are left in the future?
[Lim Joo-hye]
Representative Lee Jae-myung is currently receiving a total of five trials. First of all, the first trial was sentenced for violating the Public Official Election Act. He was sentenced to one year in prison and two years of probation. Kim Jin-sung was acquitted of the perjury teacher that happened today. There are about three more trials left to be received in the future, and the first trial is in full swing regarding the Daejang-dong, Baekhyun-dong, and Seongnam FC cases. The contents of the incident are also vast. Since the cases have been merged and there are many issues to contend with, it is still unknown when the first trial will be possible.
There is also a case of remittance to North Korea, which can also be evaluated as being preparing for the first trial. It's still unclear when the judgment will be made. There are additional charges that have recently been charged. Parts related to the misappropriation of corporate cards, embezzlement in business, and breach of trust can be problematic, and a first trial court will be set up and a trial will proceed in the future. In fact, many trials are going on at the same time, and even in the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act, which was sentenced to the first trial, and the perjury teacher case, which was sentenced to the first trial today, the trial is still alive.
However, since the first trial has given one year in prison and two years of probation in the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act, if it is confirmed as it is, the parliamentary seat will be lost and the right to run for president will be limited for 10 years. Based on the judgment made by the appeals court, if the appeals court overturns the judgment on the violation of the Public Official Election Act, it is possible to run for president. Therefore, I think it can be evaluated that the acquittal of today's judgment was like a welcome rain for representative Lee Jae-myung.
[Anchor]
As you said, for representative Lee Jae-myung, such a judgment was made today that could give a breather, but for representative Lee Jae-myung, the trial is supposed to be held for his future political life. Apart from that, I think the speed of the trial will be very important. In the case of the first trial of the Public Official Election Act 10 days ago, the first trial was sentenced in two years and two months. Today's sentence was indicted in October last year. Since he was indicted in October 2023, the first trial was sentenced in about 13 months. What is your forecast for the second trial and the speed of the process to the Supreme Court?
[Park Sung-bae]
Assuming that the presidential election is about two and a half to three years away, the cases that can proceed quickly out of the total of five trials currently being received by representative Lee Jae-myung can be summarized as the first violation of the Public Official Election Act, the second perjury teacher, and the third suspicion of private use of corporate cards in Gyeonggi Province. The cases of Daejang-dong, Baekhyun-dong, Wirye New Town, and Seongnam FC, which are the most charged, are all merged and are underway at the Seoul Central District Court. The amount of cases per case is vast, and the combined four cases will probably reach tens of thousands of records, and the defendant is strongly arguing over tens of thousands of records.
There is a possibility that it will take three years just to be declared in the first trial. It is extremely unlikely that the case will be sentenced before the presidential election. In the case of a third-party bribery of Ssangbangwool's remittance to North Korea, which is currently underway at the Suwon District Court, the trial preparation process is underway, but it has not yet entered the full-fledged trial stage. It is true that this case also has many issues and that the defendant is unlikely to be sentenced within two years as long as the defendant is strongly arguing. If so, the violation of the Public Official Election Act, which was sentenced to the first trial last week, above all, the violation of the Public Official Election Act is stipulated separately as a mandatory regulation. Of course, there are quite a few cases where you don't follow these mandatory regulations.Ma must be sentenced within six months from the time of indictment, and the second and third trials must be sentenced within three months from the time of the entire trial.
If the appeals court and the Supreme Court apply the mandatory regulations under the Public Official Election Act in principle and proceed quickly, the possibility of a final ruling within a year cannot be ruled out. The first case of violation of the Public Official Election Act is expected to be confirmed, followed by the perjury teacher case, and the perjury teacher will probably actively fight in the prosecution's appeal trial.As the overall interrogation of witnesses has been done, the first trial case, which has been drawn for about a year, usually a year, is half of that, and the third trial is the key to when the Supreme Court opens the deadline.Ma doesn't take as long as the first trial. The perjury teacher case is also expected to be sentenced before the presidential election. And the private use of corporate cards in Gyeonggi-do is likely to have been cleared by the prosecutor while prosecuting, so if it's organized properly, it depends on the degree to which the defendant fights.E can be said to be a case in which the first trial can be sentenced at least within a year and a half to two years.
[Anchor]
CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was accused of perjury, was acquitted in the first trial. Let me summarize the basis for the judgment of the court once again. The court said there was no direct evidence to admit that representative Lee Jae-myung was involved in the process of perjury by Kim Jin-sung. And it is difficult to say that CEO Lee knew or could have predicted that Kim Jin-sung would perjury in advance, and it is not enough to say that he requested false testimony based on the contents of the call.
[Anchor]
However, Kim explained that punishment is inevitable as he testified about facts he did not know or experienced at the request of CEO Lee. He was fined 5 million won. After the sentence, CEO Lee said, "I am grateful to the court for restoring truth and justice," and expressed his feelings that he was acquitted today, saying, "I will do my best for a better life for the people." After the sentence, supporters of the Democratic Party cheered while calling out Lee's name, and some lawmakers who attended the scene also showed a slight tear. Our reporters caught it.
[Anchor]
This time, I will once again convey the reaction of the ruling and opposition parties regarding today's sentence. It was reported that the Democratic Party of Korea is scheduled to hold a private meeting with its supreme council members at 4 p.m., and Rep. Kim Yong-min is a crackdown on case manipulation. The president should apologize and resign. And former head of department Park Ji-won is innocent, which is good news. He shouted, "Let's unite around Lee Jae-myung." Rep. Jung Sung-ho left a message saying, "Thank you to the judiciary for revealing the truth of the just ruling."
[Anchor]
I'll also share the reaction from the ruling party. The People's Power is a disappointing ruling on this ruling. They responded that they should wait and see the appeals court that will follow. Rep. Park Jung-hoon responded that the crime of perjury teacher itself should be removed from the criminal law. Representative Kim Yong-tae expressed regret over the judiciary's judgment and expressed his hope that it would be corrected at the second trial. Daegu Mayor Hong Joon Pyo also reacted to today's ruling. He also expressed his position that the prosecution politics of hanging the judge should stop now.
[Anchor]
The court has once again summarized the sentencing, grounds for judgment, and reasons today. Attorney Lim Joo-hye, how can we organize what the court has said?
[Lim Joo-hye]
To summarize the grounds for the court's earlier acquittal, first of all, the perjury teacher must have the intention of the perjury teacher in order to be recognized. However, it seems very important that the court saw that this was unintentional. Basically, based on the evidence submitted so far in the first trial, there was a call history, but nevertheless, there was no direct evidence that perjury was taught. The fact that there was no direct evidence to testify in this way and to testify in my favor served as an important basis for the acquittal.
And secondly, at the time of the call, CEO Lee Jae-myung did not know what purpose Kim Jin-sung would make, but he did not have a specific intention to teach perjury because it was simply a statement to the effect of asking him to make a statement as he remembered and not against his memory. Therefore, if these are taken into account, Kim Jin-sung was guilty of perjury by making statements against his memory in court, but Kim Jin-sung was sentenced to perjury with a fine of 5 million won, not because of Lee Jae-myung's teacher.
[Anchor]
Regarding representative Lee Jae-myung, we talked a lot about judicial risks because the trial continues, but do you think today's acquittal of perjury teachers will serve as an opportunity to undermine the evaluation that the judicial risk raised in the first trial of the Public Official Election Act has begun in earnest? How do you see it?
[Park Sung-bae]
In the end, the parallel lines between the two camps are bound to continue in the future. The claim that there is a judicial risk and that the political prosecution's claim to kill the opposition leader has become a situation in which the parallel line is bound to run in the future. In fact, in this case, it should be evaluated that Lee Jae-myung has accepted all of the claims that he has made so far, that is, not a teacher and not a perjury intention. First of all, the general election is only if it is not included in the teaching practice for the reason of the judgment.I stopped talking.Ma accepted the claim that there was no intention of perjury and saw that there was some atmosphere among Kim Jin-sung's remarks as not perjury. If so, it can be said that CEO Lee Jae-myung also accepted the claim that there was no intention of perjury in the first place. In fact, all accomplices were co-defendants and became criminals. Statements made by accomplices, co-defendants, can be called to court like other witnesses and used as evidence of guilt immediately even if there is no evidence-making process in which both sides fight.
[Anchor]
I'll organize what's been done so far. Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was put on trial for teaching favorable testimony, was acquitted in the first trial. The Seoul Central District Court acquitted Lee, who was indicted on charges of perjury today. Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won after some testimony was recognized as perjury.
[Anchor]
In the news that follows, I will point out the influence of the political circles on the content of the ruling in detail. Today, I was with two lawyers, Park Sung-bae and Lim Joo-hye. Thank you both for your comments.
[Anchor]
Thank you for watching.
※ 'Your report becomes news'
[Kakao Talk] YTN Search and Add Channel
[Phone] 02-398-8585
[Mail] social@ytn. co. kr
[Copyright holder (c) YTN Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution and use of AI data prohibited]
■ Starring: Lawyer Park Sung-bae, lawyer Lim Joo-hye
* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.
[Anchor]
The screen is going out right now. The sentence for representative Lee Jae-myung is expected to come out soon. Representative Lee Jae-myung was sentenced not guilty in the first trial. Democrats were even seen cheering in front of the court.
[Anchor]
We can also gauge the results of today's first trial sentence from the expressions of the Democratic Party lawmakers who were waiting in front of the court. There was a breaking news that CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was accused of perjury, was acquitted in the first trial. As expected, the sentence seems to have come out in a very short time.
[Park Sung-bae]
As there is only one prosecution, it does not seem to take long to explain the reason for the relevant judgment and to recite the order, but when an acquittal is declared, the form of the judgment is different from that of the conviction. It's different. In the case of conviction, it explains why he is guilty and orders following the judgment on sentencing, while in the case of acquittal, the prosecution reads part of the prosecution's indictment and refutes why he is innocent one by one. I explained that the fragmentary phrases that were coming out now are the reasons for the judgment to acquit some of the perjury teacher charges, but the final judgment that they are innocent seems to have concluded that there is no act of teaching in this case. Among the two major issues that Lee Jae-myung claimed, which are not teachers and not the intention of perjury, it is not the intention of perjury. In other words, it seems that he did not judge the claim that it was not a statement against his memory at all and ruled that he was not a teacher in the first place.
[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung was acquitted in the first trial of perjury teacher charges. I think CEO Lee Jae-myung will appear a little later. As he is innocent, it is expected that he will reveal his position in front of the camera. Looking at the contents of the court now, it has not been decided whether or not to testify at the time of the call. And even if you look at Kim Jin-sung's testimony individually, it cannot be seen as a perjury teacher. These are the things that are being delivered.
[Anchor]
The court's remarks continued to be delivered to the effect of innocence. The court judged that the preparation of the witness examination with the lawyer lacked evidence that representative Lee Jae-myung was involved. Even if we gather all these testimonies, it seems that representative Lee Jae-myung's innocence has now been decided by combining these details. There are a lot of prospects for guilt right now. What do you think about this judgment?
[Lim Joo-hye]
In this part, if you were acquitted, I think the direction could have been completely different depending on how you interpret the call. Looking at the details of the call, the court seems to have seen that it cannot be interpreted as the purpose of asking Lee Jae-myung to speak just because he mentioned some statements about the direction he wanted. So if you tell me that you heard, it's good to say that you heard this fact, this collusion, or remarks aimed at driving me to be a criminal, and even if there was a list like this, even if there was a conversation like this, this itself did not force Kim Jin-sung to make a statement according to the content. I think that's how I saw it.
And it seems to have been emphasized that it was a legitimate exercise of defense rights. Lawyers can also ask for favorable witnesses to testify, such as favorable or unfavorable witnesses. In the process, I may not be able to give you a guide to some extent, but in terms of mentioning these parts, Lee Jae-myung did not give a guide to any testimony in terms of the exercise of defense rights, but he did not teach you the direction he wanted. I think I focused on these parts. [Anchor] Democrats cheered outside the court at the news of their innocence. There is news that Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won, but the person who gave perjury was fined 5 million won, and CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was accused of perjury, was acquitted.
[Park Sung-bae]
It is a fairly unusual ruling, and the prosecutor is expected to appeal immediately today, but Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won when he was found guilty. Above all, as long as the prosecution was admitted from the early stages of the trial, it seems that he was fined despite some guilty pleas. Above all, however, Kim Jin-sung has insisted that he would not have made such a statement without Lee Jae-myung's request, so Kim Jin-sung is expected to continue to object to much of the part where perjury was not recognized by Lee Jae-myung.
Above all, even though Kim Jin-sung's statement itself was a false statement against his memory, the reason why Lee Jae-myung demanded the statement itself was not against his memory or even a teacher. If you make a statement as you remember it, and if you don't remember it properly, I will send it to you because the related pleading summary, that is, the pleading summary related to your trial, is well organized. Recall the viewing memory and state the evoked memory, it is now possible to evaluate that you did not see it as a teacher. Teachers can be said to be teachers who promise to provide any benefits and demand to make related statements, but not only did they not reach that level and did not deviate from the scope of certain arguments, but above all, Lee Jae-myung, who was also a lawyer at the time, is presumed to have made a call with a logic that can be defended to some extent because it could be legally problematic.
[Anchor]
You said it was unusual, but what's the reason for it being unusual? This kind of judgment.
[Park Sung-bae]
Where the abettor and the abettor are charged as co-defendants, the abettor is found guilty, but the abettor is found not guilty.
[Anchor]
Wait a minute. While talking, CEO Lee Jae-myung appeared. It came out amid the cheers. Let's hear what you're saying.
[Lee Jae-myung / Minjoo Party leader: Thank you to the court for bringing back truth and justice. The process is very difficult and long, but it's a part of the Changhae family, and the difficulty I have is only about one narrow rice in the big sea, isn't it? Compared to the difficulties our people face, I think the difficulties I face are minimal. I would like to say that I will do my best for the better life of our people in the future, and I hope that politics is not about killing and stepping on each other, but about coexisting and going with each other. Rather than killing politics, let's do politics that saves people, I want to say to the government and the ruling party. Thank you.]
[Anchor]
You can hear supporters chanting Lee Jae-myung's name.
[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung expressed his gratitude to the court for restoring truth and justice. And even though the process was difficult, isn't there a saying that it's a part of the Changhae family? He also said that it is insignificant compared to the difficulties and suffering the people face.
[Anchor]
Politics should not kill and step on each other, but should be politics that coexist and go together. So if you tell me that you heard, it's good to say that you heard this fact, this collusion, or remarks aimed at driving me to be a criminal, and even if there was a list like this, even if there was a conversation like this, this itself did not force Kim Jin-sung to make a statement according to the content. I think that's how I saw it. And it seems to have been emphasized that it was a legitimate exercise of defense rights. Lawyers can also ask for favorable witnesses to testify, such as favorable or unfavorable witnesses. In the process, I may not be able to give you a guide to some extent, but in terms of mentioning these parts, Lee Jae-myung did not give a guide to any testimony in terms of the exercise of defense rights, but he did not teach you the direction he wanted. I think I focused on these parts.
[Anchor]
Democratic lawmakers cheered outside the court at the news of their innocence. There is news that Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won, but the person who gave perjury was fined 5 million won, and CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was accused of perjury, was acquitted.
[Park Sung-bae]
It is a fairly unusual ruling, and the prosecutor is expected to appeal immediately today, but Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won when he was found guilty. Above all, as long as the prosecution was admitted from the early stages of the trial, it seems that he was fined despite some guilty pleas. Above all, however, Kim Jin-sung has insisted that he would not have made such a statement without Lee Jae-myung's request, so Kim Jin-sung is expected to continue to object to much of the part where perjury was not recognized by Lee Jae-myung.
Above all, even though Kim Jin-sung's statement itself was a false statement against his memory, the reason why Lee Jae-myung demanded the statement itself was not against his memory or even a teacher. If you make a statement as you remember it, and if you don't remember it properly, I will send it to you because the related pleading summary, that is, the pleading summary related to your trial, is well organized. Recall the viewing memory and state the evoked memory, it is now possible to evaluate that you did not see it as a teacher. Teachers can be said to be teachers who promise to provide any benefits and demand to make related statements, but not only did they not reach that level and did not deviate from the scope of certain arguments, but above all, Lee Jae-myung, who was also a lawyer at the time, is presumed to have made a call with a logic that can be defended to some extent because it could be legally problematic.
[Anchor]
You said it was unusual, but what's the reason for it being unusual? This kind of judgment.
[Park Sung-bae]
Where the abettor and the abettor are charged as co-defendants, the abettor is found guilty, but the abettor is found not guilty.
[Anchor]
Wait a minute. While talking, CEO Lee Jae-myung appeared. It came out amid the cheers. Let's hear what you're saying.
[Lee Jae-myung / Minjoo Party leader: Thank you to the court for bringing back truth and justice. The process is very difficult and long, but it's a part of the Changhae family, and the difficulty I have is only about one narrow rice in the big sea, isn't it? Compared to the difficulties our people face, I think the difficulties I face are minimal. I would like to say that I will do my best for the better life of our people in the future, and I hope that politics is not about killing and stepping on each other, but about coexisting and going with each other. Rather than killing politics, let's do politics that saves people, I want to say to the government and the ruling party. Thank you.]
[Anchor]
You can hear supporters chanting Lee Jae-myung's name.
[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung expressed his gratitude to the court for restoring truth and justice. And even though the process was difficult, isn't there a saying that it's a part of the Changhae family? He also said that it is insignificant compared to the difficulties and suffering the people face.
[Anchor]
Politics should not kill and step on each other, but should be politics that coexist and go together. He also said to the government and the ruling party, "Let's do politics that save people rather than killing politics."
[Anchor]
As the rallies of progressive and conservative groups continue around the court, I think it's a point to stop by here to see what messages they will leave. Lawyer Park was explaining the reason why this sentence was unusual earlier. Please continue.
[Park Sung-bae]
When an accomplice is charged as a co-defendant, some complicity is not recognized and some are acquitted.E is very rarely found not guilty because the offender is charged with the relevant charges, but the teacher is not charged with the relevant charges. It can be said to be a rare sentence, and above all, the reason why the court came to this judgment was speculated not to be a teacher's act. If it did not reach the teacher's act, at least from Lee Jae-myung's point of view, the statement requested from Kim Jin-sung at the time came to the judgment that Lee Jae-myung's memory was not against him. From the court's point of view, it seems that Kim Byung-ryang, the former mayor of Seongnam, decided that there was such an atmosphere, even if it was not a public offering to drive Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit instead of canceling the lawsuit against KBS PD Choi Chul-ho, but without such a premise, it is difficult to judge that Lee Jae-myung's demand was just a normal demand.
On the fact that there was such an atmosphere, the witnesses involved testified against CEO Lee Jae-myung.Ma stated that the KBS union's predecessor, who mentioned earlier, had such an atmosphere, and even if the conspiracy was not clearly proved inside the claims and some of the evidence presented by Lee Jae-myung, such an atmosphere was formed to some extent. For former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang, it was necessary to target Lee Jae-myung rather than the media company, and for KBS, it is possible that this atmosphere was formed because it was a better option to accept the cancellation of some of the charges as long as they were suffering from related reports. Because it has reached this level of judgment, it seems that it has been possible to judge that this level of demand is not an act of teaching.
[Anchor]
Earlier, lawyer Park is expected to appeal the prosecution right away. You said that you will appeal today, but what counter-argument do you expect the prosecution to make when it comes to the first trial's acquittal?
[Lim Joo-hye]
The offense and defense has changed, I think it can be evaluated like this. Since the acquittal came out, appeals from the prosecution are expected to inevitably follow. Considering the weight of what the prosecution initially demanded, it asked for three years, which can be considered the highest sentence. However, this time, the prosecution seems to have no choice but to lead the case to an appeal trial because the ruling came out as completely innocent, that is, innocent. As pointed out earlier, Kim Jin-sung, who actually testified like this at the court this time, was sentenced to a fine, but there was perjury.
However, although there was perjury about whether Kim Jin-sung did this voluntarily or what he did as a doctor, the prosecution seems to have no choice but to attack this part because it believed that the person who asked for it was not charged with perjury. First of all, there is a person who perjured, and there was no need to perjure while the intention, purpose, or profit from it was not confirmed. Nevertheless, if he perjured, this part was Lee Jae-myung's teacher. The prosecution seems to have no choice but to refute this part through an appeals court once again. It can be evaluated that going to the appeal trial is a natural step from the prosecution's point of view.
[Anchor]
The prosecution asked for three years, but the court acquitted him in the first trial of perjury. Let's listen to CEO Lee Jae-myung's remarks regarding this.
[Lee Jae-myung / Minjoo Party leader: Thank you to the court for bringing back truth and justice. The process is very difficult and long, but it's a difficult thing for me to experience as a part of the Changhae family, isn't it just one narrow-necked fish in the big sea? The difficulties that our people face compared to the pain, I think the difficulties I face are minimal. I would like to say that I will do my best for the better life of our people in the future, and I hope that politics is not about killing and stepping on each other, but about coexisting and going with each other. Rather than killing politics, let's do politics that saves people, I want to say to the government and the ruling party. Thank you.]
[Anchor]
Let me summarize once again regarding the acquittal of CEO Lee Jae-myung on charges of perjury. Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was handed over to trial on charges of abetting testimony in favor of trial witnesses, was acquitted in the first trial. The Seoul Central District Court acquitted CEO Lee, who was charged with perjury today. However, Kim Jin-sung, who was charged with perjury, was fined 5 million won because some testimony was recognized as perjury.
[Anchor]
After the sentence, CEO Lee Jae-myung expressed his gratitude to the court for restoring truth and justice. I also said that I will do my best for a better life for the people. And after the sentence, supporters of the Democratic Party and Democratic Party members cheered and shouted the name of Lee Jae-myung with a bright expression. Representative Lee was put on trial in October last year on charges of demanding false testimony from witnesses when he was indicted on charges of publicizing false information in connection with the so-called prosecutor impersonation case in 2018. The prosecution demanded a three-year prison term, the maximum sentence under the sentencing standards, saying that representative Lee's pressure led to false testimony in court and that he was acquitted. On the other hand, CEO Lee has pleaded not guilty, saying, "I just told you to make a statement as you remember." In the first trial, the court acquitted representative Lee Jae-myung. [Anchor] We're looking at the explanatory data of the court, and lawyer Park, first of all, Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won, but he was partially found guilty. So which part is guilty and which part is now judged innocent?
[Park Sung-bae]
Kim Jin-sung was partially convicted even though he fully admitted to the indictment. When he was partially acquitted, he was fined 5 million won, but he was acquitted by dividing the total amount of his remarks into 6 parts and removing 2 parts. As I mentioned earlier, there was an atmosphere to drive CEO Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit. That's the part. The part that there was an atmosphere seems to have stated the fact that Kim Jin-sung himself remembers as it is. Other facts have been convicted to the effect that they appear to have perjured their memories.
[Anchor]
How much punishment can a fine of 5 million won be considered?
[Lim Joo-hye]
Considering the basic perjury, there seems to be ample room for consideration if a fine was sentenced. Considering the fact that perjury is treated somewhat heavily, the court's reason for sentencing the defendant Kim Jin-sung was considered to be guilty of perjury for testifying as if he knew the facts against his memory and the facts he did not know. However, he was fined considering the circumstances that he acknowledged and reflected on this part, although the guilt of this part and the obstruction of the judiciary is heavy. For this part and the part that recognized the part where he was reflecting, it can be said that he was sentenced to a fine because it served as an advantageous factor.
[Anchor]
In the end, Kim Jin-sung, who is said to have perjury, was found guilty and fined 5 million won, and Lee Jae-myung, who is said to have been a perjury teacher, was found not guilty. Have there been cases like this before? How do you see it?
[Park Sung-bae]
I think it's rare enough for me to look for cases. In particular, it seems uncommon for the actor to declare some acquittal despite the full admission of the prosecution, and when an arrest warrant is requested during the investigation process, the judgment is based only on the prosecutor's unilateral claims and evidence, but several witnesses have testified in the process of conducting the hearing, and some suspicion seems to have been formed in the process of judging by mixing arguments and data from both sides in the process of the defendant's rebuttal and submission of additional data. Kim Jin-sung acknowledged the fact that there was a certain atmosphere even though Kim Jin-sung admitted the charges in general, and Lee Jae-myung asked for a statement, but he seems to have decided that he did not reach the level of demanding that statement by reviving memories that were not beyond the usual level of argument.
As the prosecutor has broken down some of the premise that the matter itself was false, it is quite shocking for the prosecutor, and it is expected to focus more on proving that such an atmosphere has not even been formed through an appeal trial. Furthermore, Kim Jin-sung was partially convicted, and Kim Jin-sung would not have made such a statement without the request of Lee Jae-myung. It is expected that the prosecutor will strongly argue at the appeal trial that Lee Jae-myung should be recognized as perjury teacher as long as he is found guilty of such a statement without Lee Jae-myung's request, whether the reason for making the statement was the expectation of unilateral profit provision or fear of Lee Jae-myung, who was elected governor of Gyeonggi Province.
[Anchor]
Regarding today's sentencing of representative Lee Jae-myung, it was reported that the court's issuance of a telephone call and pleading summary was difficult to regard as a perjury teacher. There was also a judgment by the court that Lee Jae-myung could not be considered to have been intentional by the teacher. So, in a way, intentionality was pointed out as a big issue in this sentence, but in this part, it cannot be said that it was intentional.
[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. I think this is a very important part. First of all, it was intentional to go over the mountain in the first stage and the first stage in order for the perjury teacher charge to be admitted. So, only when the intention to teach perjury is recognized can the crime of perjury be established, but the court saw that CEO Lee Jae-myung had no intention of perjury. If you look at the evidence, first of all, there is no evidence that Representative Lee Jae-myung directly intervened in this testimony. Therefore, I think it can be seen as one part of this that there was no intention.
And the intention is to make a statement to Kim Jin-sung as he remembers after talking on the phone several times, and at the time of this call, Kim Jin-sung did not know what purpose he would testify, so he cannot teach perjury to anyone who may make a statement in this regard. That's why I think I'm emphasizing this part that there was no intention. In particular, Kim Jin-sung may give perjury later or perjury. Since such unnecessary intention cannot be confirmed, the fact that representative Lee Jae-myung does not have the intention of perjury against the defendant Kim Jin-sung seems to have played a very important role in making a judgment of innocence this time.
[Anchor]
It was when Lee Jae-myung was indicted for this perjury teacher case when he discovered a recording file of the call, but in the end, the call itself, that is, what the court said, is no different from the usual request for testimony. It was a normal request for testimony, saying, "So please testify." So it's not about testifying like this, it's about testifying. That's how the court decided, right?
[Park Sung-bae]
In fact, it is quite difficult for CEO Lee Jae-myung to give a reasonable explanation regarding the fact that he was framed as he was convicted of impersonating a public official. If so, we have no choice but to find someone close to this case and know the situation in general and ask him to make a related statement, but from the perspective of the court, it was just that much. It was not a request to cross the line to tell facts that did not exist, and although the final judgment was made at the time, there was something that could be unfair from the defendant's point of view, and it only reached the level of finding a person who knows the relevant facts and asking that person to make a related statement. The only thing that has delivered the summary of the argument itself is the summary prepared by the lawyer who organized it, so try to recall your memory while delivering the summary of the argument. In the process, I think I made a statement as I remembered it, and judged that it was only at this level of demand.
And once again, according to the explanatory data of the court, Kim Jin-sung's guilt and innocence are completely differentiated. As for the guilty part, it is completely guilty that there was a consultation between former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS to drive CEO Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit. However, there was an opinion in the election camp of former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang that Lee Jae-myung should be driven as the main culprit so that he can be clearly arrested, that is, it is innocent that there was an atmosphere. In other words, the court judged that the atmosphere was actually there, and if there was such an atmosphere, there was such an atmosphere or consultation as it demanded relevant testimony. It seems that the demand that the degree can be told has not reached the level of unreasonable demand to state facts that are not beyond the usual pleading activities.
[Anchor]
The court judged that there was actually such an atmosphere, right?
[Park Sung-bae]
Even if it's not a consultation.
[Anchor]
The court just told us about the authenticity of the remarks, but if you look at the prosecution's position earlier, the prosecution judged that CEO Lee Jae-myung urged perjury, such as sending a summary of his argument to Kim Jin-sung, and that CEO Lee asked for false testimony in his favor. So, the prosecution asked Kim Jin-sung, who said he couldn't remember well, for three years in prison, believing that Lee Jae-myung demanded perjury as if he were injecting him, but the court's judgment was different. He was acquitted at the first trial. So, the authenticity and intentionality of the remarks in relation to this sentence, and whether the remarks can be considered to have induced the act of perjury. These were the issues, but which part of the court's judgment was the most important?
[Lim Joo-hye]
As you said, the prosecution asked you to tell me what you remember, and the part where you sent the summary of your argument is an injection into a certain memory. The prosecution has argued to the effect that it was to tell us as it is. However, the judgment of the court was different. Regarding Kim Jin-sung's testimony, Lee Jae-myung was right to ask for a witness in a situation where he needed to testify. In the process, Kim Jin-sung is not remembered properly. As for the part that he said he was not sure, at least Lee Jae-myung has not specifically informed or guided him to testify, and the part that provided the same part of the summary of the argument is usually like this.
It seems to be a very important part that the court judged that just by letting the other person know that my one-sided position is like this, it cannot be seen as a part of asking me to speak as it is or to speak to my advantage. Therefore, there have been several times when Kim Jin-sung was asked to tell him the summary of the defense statement as delivered by Lee Jae-myung or as he remembered it, but at least then it would be good to tell him that you heard this, and exercise the right to defend yourself in relation to the part he said. Therefore, from the standpoint of representative Lee Jae-myung, it was a remark that could be made while requesting witnesses at a level that could be sufficiently made. Therefore, from the standpoint of CEO Lee Jae-myung, there was no intention of perjury teacher. So it's innocent, this logic seems to have been established now.
[Anchor]
The contents of the facility supporting the judgment of the court are being delivered. There was a story that Kim Jin-sung requested explicit testimony only for matters that he did not clearly deny. There was also a story that Kim Jin-sung did not ask for testimony about what he did not know or deny. So, the interpretation of the part where Lee Jae-myung said, "Please tell me as soon as the representative of Lee Jae-myung is present" was very different, but the interpretation of Lee Jae-myung and the prosecution was different, but the court seems to have seen this as it is. It's like that, right?
[Park Sung-bae]
In response to the prosecution's request to make a statement as it was, Kim Jin-sung said, "I don't remember the situation at all, but I repeatedly asked him to tell me as he was and to tell me as he was, so it was a process of injecting certain facts." He saw himself as a perjury teacher. However, according to the contents of the call at the time, the court's decision is only to ask for some kind of communication between former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS, or to talk about the overall flow, the atmosphere, or the stories, and does not exceed the usual request for testimony.
Moreover, Kim Jin-sung seems to have been aware of the atmosphere at the time, but since he said he could not remember the situation at the time, it seems that providing a summary of the situation at the time itself does not go beyond the scope of ordinary pleading activities. In particular, the reason for the ruling is not explicitly stated in the fact that there is no fact that there is a critical request for a testimony, and there has been no exact request for a certain text, and above all, there has been no temptation, such as threatening or providing certain benefits when the court demands such testimony.Ma seems to have been the basis for the acquittal. If so, it can be evaluated that the defendant has come to an acquittal based on the interests of the defendant.
[Anchor]
In fact, there were many observations that expected fines 10 days ago when the Public Official Election Act was sentenced, but I was surprised once that the suspended sentence of the prison sentence came out, and many predicted that a fine or a prison sentence would come out today, but I was acquitted. The sentence continues to be wrong as expected. The prosecution will immediately appeal the perjury teacher's sentence today, what do you think about the possibility of the ruling being overturned in the second trial amid these predictions?
[Lim Joo-hye]
Of course, the first trial has just been sentenced. That's why it seems to be a matter that has no choice but to go to the Supreme Court. It's not over until it's over, but the first trial ruling has a very important meaning. We have no choice but to evaluate that in the first trial, both sides have already submitted all the data and arguments they can present and fought with all their might. Since the direction of the first trial eventually has a great impact on future trials, both sides must have already submitted all the evidence they can give. In addition, the data that can be presented by witnesses and these parts are rulings that were obtained by opening up a general offensive, so in fact, the meaning can be significant.
However, since the prosecution has been judged on Lee Jae-myung, who is not guilty at all, which falls far short of what they demanded, Kim Jin-sung was finally found guilty of perjury at the appeal trial. Only the part where there was an atmosphere was considered not against his memory, and only that part was considered innocent, and the rest of the specific statements were admitted as perjury, so why did Kim Jin-sung give perjury? Was there such a reason to give perjury even though there was no benefit to anyone's request or the person himself? It seems that the purpose of innocence can be overturned only when the prosecution proves these parts, focusing on whether there was Lee Jae-myung's involvement in the process.
Anyway, it can be seen as the starting point of this fight, but in the second trial, it can be seen that it begins with innocence. Therefore, it is expected to be a very important issue in changing the judgment in the second trial to present additional evidence to prove that the perjury teacher was intentional about the logic put forward by the first trial, especially the representative Lee Jae-myung. [Anchor] After today's acquittal, there is news that those who attended the support rally, so supporters, shouted for representative Lee Jae-myung. In addition, some of the lawmakers who were with us were also caught in our reporters shedding tears. As such, the ruling came out from the perspective of the Democratic Party of Korea, which can compensate for the impact of the Public Official Election Act 10 days ago, so what do you think about the possibility of being overturned in the second trial?
[Park Sung-bae]
There's a good chance that it's going to flip. The reason for this is that when the trial proceeds, the first trial, appeal trial, and Supreme Court rulings are often mixed even with the same data. There is a possibility of making a different judgment on the same data, and the prosecution's point of view is that the perjury teacher is right, as explained earlier in the appeal trial, and Kim Jin-sung is expected to actively protest that there is no other reason to commit perjury without unreasonable demands from Lee Jae-myung, as long as he has already been convicted in the first trial. Above all, the court did not view Lee Jae-myung's behavior as a teacher's act, which was a request to explain the overall atmosphere at the time, but it was accepted as true that there was an atmosphere between former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS that such a story could come and go.
The prosecution has been conducting various arguments on the premise that such facts are completely false, and as long as the first trial court accepted the fact that there was this atmosphere as a fact, it is expected to do its best to prove further to break the facts. The court is quite reluctant to call back witnesses who have already appeared as witnesses in the first trial at the appeal trial. The prosecution would say, "Do we need to call it again?" But if there are witnesses who have decided that they do not need to call it in the first trial, the appeals court will actively summon it as a witness and defend that all the facts themselves are only false.
[Anchor]
If I ask you one more question, from Kim Jin-sung's point of view, CEO Lee Jae-myung has been found not guilty. And it was recognized that he perjured himself. If Representative Lee Jae-myung is found guilty, will it affect his sentence? Is there a possibility that the sentence will be reduced a little if I say that I'm perjury because of someone?
[Park Sung-bae]
In this case, CEO Lee Jae-myung was acquitted, and the circumstances that he cooperated with the discovery of the actual relationship in this case, regardless of the guilt or innocence of CEO Lee Jae-myung, seem to have been fully reflected as a reason for sentencing. Kim Jin-sung's fine is unlikely to be lowered even if CEO Lee Jae-myung is convicted at an appeal trial. If the first trial of the case is found not guilty, or if representative Lee Jae-myung is convicted of perjury, and the ruling is confirmed by the court, he was found not guilty of publicizing false information under the Public Official Election Act in May 2018 for his remarks at the Gyeonggi Province governor's candidate debate, that is, his false accusation. This ruling itself is not subject to a retrial.
A retrial is possible when the evidence of the original ruling is proven to be false or the testimony of the original ruling is found to be false. Even if a retrial is possible, a retrial can be re-opened only for the benefit of the defendant. In other words, there is no retrial to convict the accused who has been found not guilty again. If the conviction was sentenced in the first trial of the perjury teacher in this case, it would have served as a more serious weighting factor for CEO Lee Jae-myung. Considering that perjury has already had some impact and has been found not guilty, and the reality relationship cannot be overturned by a retrial, a more serious sentence should have been sentenced. The prosecutor's view would be exactly the same, but since the acquittal was declared innocent, the sentence is not the problem, but I have to do my best to prove the perjury teacher conviction as representative Lee Jae-myung.
[Anchor]
The ruling and opposition parties are now responding while they were acquitted in the first trial regarding the perjury teacher charge. First of all, it was reported that the Democratic Party of Korea will hold a closed meeting of the Supreme Council members at 4 p.m. today. Rep. Kim Yong-min is said to have said that President Yoon, who fabricated and suppressed the case, should apologize and resign.
[Anchor]
The power of the people is being opposed. It's a disappointing ruling. The party's position that the appeals court should be watched came out. In addition, Rep. Park Jung-hoon responded fiercely to the crime of perjury teachers and to get rid of it from the criminal law.
[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung was acquitted in the first trial of perjury. What other trials are left in the future?
[Lim Joo-hye]
Representative Lee Jae-myung is currently receiving a total of five trials. First of all, the first trial was sentenced for violating the Public Official Election Act. He was sentenced to one year in prison and two years of probation. Kim Jin-sung was acquitted of the perjury teacher that happened today. There are about three more trials left to be received in the future, and the first trial is in full swing regarding the Daejang-dong, Baekhyun-dong, and Seongnam FC cases. The contents of the incident are also vast. Since the cases have been merged and there are many issues to contend with, it is still unknown when the first trial will be possible.
There is also a case of remittance to North Korea, which can also be evaluated as being preparing for the first trial. It's still unclear when the judgment will be made. There are additional charges that have recently been charged. Parts related to the misappropriation of corporate cards, embezzlement in business, and breach of trust can be problematic, and a first trial court will be set up and a trial will proceed in the future. In fact, many trials are going on at the same time, and even in the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act, which was sentenced to the first trial, and the perjury teacher case, which was sentenced to the first trial today, the trial is still alive.
However, since the first trial has given one year in prison and two years of probation in the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act, if it is confirmed as it is, the parliamentary seat will be lost and the right to run for president will be limited for 10 years. Based on the judgment made by the appeals court, if the appeals court overturns the judgment on the violation of the Public Official Election Act, it is possible to run for president. Therefore, I think it can be evaluated that the acquittal of today's judgment was like a welcome rain for representative Lee Jae-myung.
[Anchor]
As you said, for representative Lee Jae-myung, such a judgment was made today that could give a breather, but for representative Lee Jae-myung, the trial is supposed to be held for his future political life. Apart from that, I think the speed of the trial will be very important. In the case of the first trial of the Public Official Election Act 10 days ago, the first trial was sentenced in two years and two months. Today's sentence was indicted in October last year. Since he was indicted in October 2023, the first trial was sentenced in about 13 months. What is your forecast for the second trial and the speed of the process to the Supreme Court?
[Park Sung-bae]
Assuming that the presidential election is about two and a half to three years away, the cases that can proceed quickly out of the total of five trials currently being received by representative Lee Jae-myung can be summarized as the first violation of the Public Official Election Act, the second perjury teacher, and the third suspicion of private use of corporate cards in Gyeonggi Province. The cases of Daejang-dong, Baekhyun-dong, Wirye New Town, and Seongnam FC, which are the most charged, are all merged and are underway at the Seoul Central District Court. The amount of cases per case is vast, and the combined four cases will probably reach tens of thousands of records, and the defendant is strongly arguing over tens of thousands of records.
There is a possibility that it will take three years just to be declared in the first trial. It is extremely unlikely that the case will be sentenced before the presidential election. In the case of a third-party bribery of Ssangbangwool's remittance to North Korea, which is currently underway at the Suwon District Court, the trial preparation process is underway, but it has not yet entered the full-fledged trial stage. It is true that this case also has many issues and that the defendant is unlikely to be sentenced within two years as long as the defendant is strongly arguing. If so, the violation of the Public Official Election Act, which was sentenced to the first trial last week, above all, the violation of the Public Official Election Act is stipulated separately as a mandatory regulation. Of course, there are quite a few cases where you don't follow these mandatory regulations.Ma must be sentenced within six months from the time of indictment, and the second and third trials must be sentenced within three months from the time of the entire trial.
If the appeals court and the Supreme Court apply the mandatory regulations under the Public Official Election Act in principle and proceed quickly, the possibility of a final ruling within a year cannot be ruled out. The first case of violation of the Public Official Election Act is expected to be confirmed, followed by the perjury teacher case, and the perjury teacher will probably actively fight in the prosecution's appeal trial.As the overall interrogation of witnesses has been done, the first trial case, which has been drawn for about a year, usually a year, is half of that, and the third trial is the key to when the Supreme Court opens the deadline.Ma doesn't take as long as the first trial. The perjury teacher case is also expected to be sentenced before the presidential election. And the private use of corporate cards in Gyeonggi-do is likely to have been cleared by the prosecutor while prosecuting, so if it's organized properly, it depends on the degree to which the defendant fights.E can be said to be a case in which the first trial can be sentenced at least within a year and a half to two years.
[Anchor]
CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was accused of perjury, was acquitted in the first trial. Let me summarize the basis for the judgment of the court once again. The court said there was no direct evidence to admit that representative Lee Jae-myung was involved in the process of perjury by Kim Jin-sung. And it is difficult to say that CEO Lee knew or could have predicted that Kim Jin-sung would perjury in advance, and it is not enough to say that he requested false testimony based on the contents of the call.
[Anchor]
However, Kim explained that punishment is inevitable as he testified about facts he did not know or experienced at the request of CEO Lee. He was fined 5 million won. After the sentence, CEO Lee said, "I am grateful to the court for restoring truth and justice," and expressed his feelings that he was acquitted today, saying, "I will do my best for a better life for the people." After the sentence, supporters of the Democratic Party cheered while calling out Lee's name, and some lawmakers who attended the scene also showed a slight tear. Our reporters caught it.
[Anchor]
This time, I will once again convey the reaction of the ruling and opposition parties regarding today's sentence. It was reported that the Democratic Party of Korea is scheduled to hold a private meeting with its supreme council members at 4 p.m., and Rep. Kim Yong-min is a crackdown on case manipulation. The president should apologize and resign. And former head of department Park Ji-won is innocent, which is good news. He shouted, "Let's unite around Lee Jae-myung." Rep. Jung Sung-ho left a message saying, "Thank you to the judiciary for revealing the truth of the just ruling."
[Anchor]
I'll also share the reaction from the ruling party. The People's Power is a disappointing ruling on this ruling. They responded that they should wait and see the appeals court that will follow. Rep. Park Jung-hoon responded that the crime of perjury teacher itself should be removed from the criminal law. Representative Kim Yong-tae expressed regret over the judiciary's judgment and expressed his hope that it would be corrected at the second trial. Daegu Mayor Hong Joon Pyo also reacted to today's ruling. He also expressed his position that the prosecution politics of hanging the judge should stop now.
[Anchor]
The court has once again summarized the sentencing, grounds for judgment, and reasons today. Attorney Lim Joo-hye, how can we organize what the court has said?
[Lim Joo-hye]
To summarize the grounds for the court's earlier acquittal, first of all, the perjury teacher must have the intention of the perjury teacher in order to be recognized. However, it seems very important that the court saw that this was unintentional. Basically, based on the evidence submitted so far in the first trial, there was a call history, but nevertheless, there was no direct evidence that perjury was taught. The fact that there was no direct evidence to testify in this way and to testify in my favor served as an important basis for the acquittal.
And secondly, at the time of the call, CEO Lee Jae-myung did not know what purpose Kim Jin-sung would make, but he did not have a specific intention to teach perjury because it was simply a statement to the effect of asking him to make a statement as he remembered and not against his memory. Therefore, if these are taken into account, Kim Jin-sung was guilty of perjury by making statements against his memory in court, but Kim Jin-sung was sentenced to perjury with a fine of 5 million won, not because of Lee Jae-myung's teacher.
[Anchor]
Regarding representative Lee Jae-myung, we talked a lot about judicial risks because the trial continues, but do you think today's acquittal of perjury teachers will serve as an opportunity to undermine the evaluation that the judicial risk raised in the first trial of the Public Official Election Act has begun in earnest? How do you see it?
[Park Sung-bae]
In the end, the parallel lines between the two camps are bound to continue in the future. The claim that there is a judicial risk and that the political prosecution's claim to kill the opposition leader has become a situation in which the parallel line is bound to run in the future. In fact, in this case, it should be evaluated that Lee Jae-myung has accepted all of the claims that he has made so far, that is, not a teacher and not a perjury intention. First of all, the general election is only if it is not included in the teaching practice for the reason of the judgment.I stopped talking.Ma accepted the claim that there was no intention of perjury and saw that there was some atmosphere among Kim Jin-sung's remarks as not perjury. If so, it can be said that CEO Lee Jae-myung also accepted the claim that there was no intention of perjury in the first place. In fact, all accomplices were co-defendants and became criminals. Statements made by accomplices, co-defendants, can be called to court like other witnesses and used as evidence of guilt immediately even if there is no evidence-making process in which both sides fight.
[Anchor]
I'll organize what's been done so far. Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was put on trial for teaching favorable testimony, was acquitted in the first trial. The Seoul Central District Court acquitted Lee, who was indicted on charges of perjury today. Kim Jin-sung was fined 5 million won after some testimony was recognized as perjury.
[Anchor]
In the news that follows, I will point out the influence of the political circles on the content of the ruling in detail. Today, I was with two lawyers, Park Sung-bae and Lim Joo-hye. Thank you both for your comments.
[Anchor]
Thank you for watching.
※ 'Your report becomes news'
[Kakao Talk] YTN Search and Add Channel
[Phone] 02-398-8585
[Mail] social@ytn. co. kr
[Copyright holder (c) YTN Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution and use of AI data prohibited]
Society
More- [Issue ON] Lee Jae-myung's 'perjury teacher' is not guilty in the first trial...Court "Not intentional"
- Prosecutors said, "Lee Jae-myung, a perjury teacher, is not guilty...Appeals to be appealed"
- Seocho-dong... Reaction to 'Lee Jae-myung not guilty' is mixed again.
- [Breaking News] Prosecutors said, "Lee Jae-myung, a perjury teacher, is not guilty...Appeals to be appealed"
!["A collapsed soccer association will be torn apart"...Heo Jung-moo, president of the association, is on the way. [This is the news]](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2024/1125/202411251614472059_h.jpg)
!["I didn't know you were out of wedlock".Jung Woo-sung's lover, who also knew Lee Jung-jae, is 'in big shock' [Now News]](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2024/1125/202411251236280875_h.jpg)
