Court "Guarantee of the right to defend...Lack of evidence of direct intervention"

In the first trial, "Representative Lee Jae-myung acts, exercising his legitimate right to defend"
", referring to the necessary testimony...It's not perjury.

[Anchor]
The court judged that it was difficult to admit the perjury teacher charge just because Lee Jae-myung talked to Kim Jin-sung on the phone and sent a summary of his argument.

It was an exercise of defense rights that could be taken sufficiently as a defendant, but I also saw a lack of evidence that representative Lee directly intervened.

Reporter Kim Chul-hee reports.

[Reporter]
CEO Lee Jae-myung says he will send a summary of his argument after speaking to Kim Jin-sung around 2018.

[Lee Jae-myung / Governor of Gyeonggi-do Province at the time (last 2018): It would be helpful if you could tell me a little bit about what I was mainly targeting and what happened with a very political background. I'll send you a summary of your argument.]

In response, the first trial judged that Lee Jae-myung's series of actions was a "justifiable exercise of defense rights."

Representative Lee took this action against Kim, who was in a hostile relationship,
Considering
and the fact that 16 years have passed since the 'prosecutor impersonation case', it is difficult to say that it is beyond the level of defense that the defendant can exercise in violation of the election law.

In addition, he saw that CEO Lee's mention of what testimony he needed to the other party could not be concluded as a "request for false statements."

In addition to this, Kim Jin-sung's request for testimony only on things that he did not know or deny, which was clearly not denied, served as the basis for his innocence.

In the end, the first trial judged that it was not enough to say that CEO Lee directly intervened in Kim's perjury, considering the various circumstances.

I'm Kim Chulhee of YTN.

Filmmaker: Choi Sung-hoon
Edit Video: Electronic
Design: Im Saetbyul