[News UP] "Only perjury guilty"...What is the basis for Lee Jae-myung's judgment of "not guilty" in the first trial?

Lee Jae-myung, a perjury teacher, is not guilty in the first trial
Judge's judgment of 'no intention'
Kim Jin-sung is partially guilty of 'perjury'
Prosecutors "will appeal immediately"

■ Host: Anchor Cho Jin-hyuk
■ Starring: Lawyer Seo Jeong-bin

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

[Anchor]
Let's continue to go into detail about it. With lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. In fact, the first trial of perjury teacher. The possibility of guilt was expected to be quite high, but he was acquitted this time. First of all, what did you think of the sentence?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Personally, it was quite difficult for me to predict how this case would turn out. This is because, although it was dismissed when an arrest warrant was filed for CEO Lee Jae-myung last year, it was judged to be an explanation for the perjury teacher's charges, and at that time, I thought that the evidence of the charges would be solidified to some extent when it went to the main decision. However, when all the transcripts with Kim Jin-sung were released during the actual trial, I thought this would be evidence in favor of Lee Jae-myung again because there were several expressions in the content that Lee Jae-myung should make a statement as he remembered.

However, after seeing the atmosphere of being sentenced to a considerable heavy sentence in violation of the Public Official Election Act 10 days ago, it was very difficult to predict how this would be concluded. Looking at the contents of the sentence or the explanatory materials, it seems that the court also had a lot of trouble reaching a conclusion, so I thought that considerable effort was made to explain the basis for the conclusion. In particular, in the conclusion, the contents of the entire transcript between CEO Lee Jae-myung and Kim Jin-sung are based in detail, and the entire transcript between the two seems to have had a significant impact on the judgment.

[Anchor]
I'm also curious about the response of legal professionals. As you mentioned earlier, it's 10 days ago.The violation of the election law was expected to be a fine, but a heavy penalty came out. And this time, there were many prospects of guilt, but they were completely innocent. What is the response of the legal professionals?

[Jeongbin Seo]
As you said, the opinion that heavy punishment could be avoided in most cases of the first case and the Public Official Election Act seems to have prevailed a little more, and the result of the sentence of one year in prison and two years of probation in the case can be judged more seriously in this perjury case. So basically, it seems that the opinion that the sentence would be very serious on the premise of guilt was a little more dominant. Because of that situation, I know that there are some people who say that the part of the conviction this time is quite unusual, and others who say that they did not expect it.

[Anchor]
Then, let's take a closer look at the contents of the first trial. Representative Lee sent Kim Jin-sung a summary of his argument, and Kim Jin-sung confessed in court, "I perjured myself," but this didn't seem to be recognized. What do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, looking at the court's overall judgment, in the end, when representative Lee Jae-myung asks Kim Jin-sung to testify, it cannot be seen as an act of teaching perjury. And it was judged that the intention of the perjury teacher was not recognized. In more detail, according to the ruling, Lee Jae-myung's testimony to Kim Jin-sung demanded testimony about the flow between former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang and KBS, the stories he heard, the situation at the time, and the atmosphere that drove him.

However, CEO Lee Jae-myung did not request testimony on the part where Kim Jin-sung was found guilty of perjury, that is, the agreement between Kim Byung-ryang and KBS to accuse Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit. In addition, regarding the method of requesting testimony, when listening to the conversation at the time, they mention what testimony is needed and check what the witness remembers or knows. Therefore, it is not much different from ordinary testimony requests.

He also judged that just because he mentioned the testimony he needed, it was difficult to say that he asked for perjury with it. In addition, regarding the summary of the argument, it was judged that it was difficult to say that it was against common sense or that it was beyond the right of defense to provide the summary to remind the memory of the situation Lee Jae-myung was in at the time of the prosecutor impersonation and his duty. In the end, Kim Jin-sung's false testimony, that is, Lee Jae-myung has never asked for perjury. And it can be seen as a judgment that this cannot be regarded as a perjury teacher's act because it was an explicit request for testimony only on matters that were remembered or sympathetic and not clearly denied.

[Anchor]
I'd like to ask you a small part of this, but haven't the words "guessment summary" continued to appear a lot in related reports? What's this defense summary?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Eventually, during this trial or investigation, the attorney submits an opinion, and the summary of the argument is usually referred to as the summary of the argument when an attorney submits an opinion during the trial. Most of them look at the final attorney's opinion and call it a summary of their arguments. In fact, when you ask the defendant and the client for testimonies or other important witnesses, you sometimes ask them what they remember in words, but sometimes they send an opinion or summary of their arguments to remind them of their memories. Therefore, it was judged that the sending of such a lawyer's opinion and summary of the argument did not go beyond that in terms of guaranteeing the defendant's right to defend himself.

[Anchor]
So, the court judged that saying that I would send you a summary of the argument cannot be seen as teaching perjury. The most controversial part was Kim Jin-sung's perjury charge, as explained earlier. The perjury was recognized even though the ruling party and the prosecution responded like this, but the perjury teacher was not recognized. It's a reaction that says it's not easy to understand. How do I interpret this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, if you look at the explanatory data, I explained this part with more detailed evidence. In conclusion, CEO Lee Jae-myung's intention is not recognized in this regard. First of all, what Kim Jin-sung was convicted of are testimonies to the effect that there was a consultation between Kim Byung-ryang, the former mayor of Seongnam, and KBS to drop the charges and drive Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit. For this, perjury has been recognized, but in the case of teachers, two intentions must be recognized. One is that in this case, Kim Jin-sung needs one intention to make him feel guilty to perjury. Another thing is that two intentions are needed to realize perjury through Kim Jin-sung. The court judged that neither intention was recognized.

At the time, it was not decided whether Kim Jin-sung would actually testify or what details he would testify. So, as representative Lee Jae-myung, it is difficult to say that Kim Jin-sung knew or could have known this part of perjury, so he decided that his intention to realize perjury through Kim Jin-sung was not recognized. Considering the same circumstances, and judging that it is difficult to make a request with false testimony given what Lee Jae-myung asked Kim Jin-sung at the time, I also cannot admit the intention of making such perjury. In the end, Kim Jin-sung was convicted of the statement, but in the case of CEO Lee Jae-myung, he knew or could not even predict such a part. Therefore, he was acquitted because he judged that the intention was not recognized.

[Anchor]
So, it is the judgment of the court that Kim Jin-sung gave perjury, but it should be considered that CEO Lee Jae-myung has no influence on the motive. Then, Kim Jin-sung's motive for perjury is not contained in this, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right.

[Anchor]
Are you saying that there is no intention of perjury?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. In the end, the unrequested testimony was judged as perjury, but there is a problem like this, so the ruling party or critical point of view is criticizing why they perjured the part where they did not even teach.

[Anchor]
And one of the reasons for the high possibility of guilt is that the charges of perjury teacher appear to be cleared when the court rejected the warrant during the actual examination of the arrest warrant in September last year. Since then, it seems that the interpretation of the transcript has changed rather than new evidence between the time differences. Can you explain it to me?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. As you said, the entire transcript between the two men seems to have been the most decisive reason for such a difference between the judgment at the warrant and the sentence in this case. During the trial in this case, when the prosecution played excerpts of the transcript in court, the entire conversation was played at the request of the presiding judge. This was eventually interpreted to mean that we would look at the overall context of this conversation and judge the remarks. In addition, even looking at the explanatory data of the ruling, Kim Jin-sung said he did not know about the agreement that led to Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit, and he did not ask for further testimony. In addition, the method of requesting testimony was not much different from the usual case. In this way, many of the contents confirmed in the entire transcript were used as the basis for the judgment of innocence. If so, it is likely that these entire conversations were not reviewed in detail in the warrant review, and in comparison, this trial reviewed them in detail, and in the end, this conclusion seems to have changed the judgment.

[Anchor]
What is a little confusing from the public's point of view is that the prosecution interpreted the entire transcript as giving a feeling of teaching perjury when listening to the overall contents, and the court made the opposite judgment. The prosecution immediately issued a statement and expressed its willingness to appeal, so you will submit an appeal, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think I'll submit it right away. The prosecution said it would appeal in two and a half hours after the sentence was sentenced, and found Kim Jin-sung guilty of perjury, saying, "It is hard to understand that the perjury teacher is not recognized, so it is not convincing that Lee Jae-myung was acquitted," and said, "After reviewing the ruling, I will immediately appeal and do my best to prove my guilt."

[Anchor]
If you go to the second trial now, which part will be an issue in the future?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Everything that was argued in the first trial would be an issue, but first of all, the prosecution is expected to reinforce this argument that representative Lee Jae-myung has actually taught perjury to Kim Jin-sung in the context of the overall conversation. There was no explicit request to state the details of the consultation between KBS and former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang, but he continued to make repeated requests and eventually told them to make false statements. He is expected to claim that he was also intentional. In addition, the first trial judged that Kim Jin-sung did not have a teacher of CEO Lee Jae-myung for the testimony that admitted perjury, so then there is no way that he perjured even the contents that he did not ask for. Therefore, I think it will strengthen the argument that there was a teaching behavior.

Meanwhile, Lee Jae-myung's side is expected to strengthen the claim that there was no intention or action of perjury teachers based on such judgment criteria in the first trial. Therefore, it was difficult to predict that Kim Jin-sung would go further and make false statements, as he only repeatedly demanded statements of facts. Therefore, I think I will repeat the perjury teacher's behavior and that there was no intention of perjury teacher.

[Anchor]
It's hard to predict the outcome of the second trial.No matter how Ma comes out, it goes to the Supreme Court, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. No matter what the conclusion is, none of which is missing from the ongoing trial, whether it is in Lee Jae-myung's favor or the prosecution's favor, the other side has no choice but to appeal, so even if the second trial's judgment changes or remains the same, it seems that one side will have to appeal and wait for the Supreme Court's ruling.

[Anchor]
Currently, CEO Lee Jae-myung is undergoing five trials, but there are two trials in which the first trial came out. Could you organize the remaining trials?

[Jeongbin Seo]
There are currently five ongoing cases in total. Baekhyun-dong case or Daejang-dong case in question right now. And the remittance to North Korea or the Seongnam FC incident. In addition, the case of embezzlement of trust related to corporate cards, which was recently prosecuted, is still underway. In fact, for the time being, there are cases that have not yet begun to expect that the first trial of the rest of these cases will be sentenced immediately, and there are cases that are just in the middle of progress, so it will take a considerable amount of time for these trials to be sentenced. Representative Lee Jae-myung's side will not be able to focus on one case if any of them are convicted, and they will do their best to defend themselves. In a timely manner, other cases will still take a considerable amount of time to conclude, and I think they will focus more on the violation of the Public Official Election Act, which was sentenced 10 days ago.

[Anchor]
It's too complicated, so it would be nice if you could organize it briefly, but isn't there a lot of trials left until the presidential election in two years? To some extent, it is expected to be finished before the presidential election, and to some extent, it is expected to come out afterwards, do you have a personal opinion?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act, which has been sentenced to the first trial, and the perjury teacher case, it is unlikely that it will take that long to confirm the second trial and the Supreme Court decision. Compared to other issues, the issue is rather simple and simple, so I think these cases will still be finalized within two years. In fact, the rest of the cases are more complicated and have one trial than these cases, but there are many cases in which various cases are combined. And as I said earlier, the cases of embezzlement of corporate cards and breach of trust cases in Gyeonggi Province, which have just been indicted, have just begun, so in fact, all these cases are expected to be fiercely contested and complicated, so it's hard to say that they're all over until the presidential election begins after the first trial and the second trial and the Supreme Court ruling. After that, we expect that a final ruling will come out on these cases.

[Anchor]
I see. Let's stop here. I was with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Thank you.