Lee Jae-myung, a perjury teacher, was acquitted in the first trial, and the decisive reason was "call with Kim Jin-sung."

◆ [YTN Radio SHINYUL's news]
■ Broadcasting: FM 94.5 (17:00-19:00)
■ Air date: November 26, 2024 (Tuesday)
■ Proceedings: Shin Yul, Professor of Political Science and Diplomacy at Myongji University
■ Dialogue: Lawyer Park Sang-soo, Lawyer Cho Ki-yeon

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information.

Park Sang-soo
- Lee Jae-myung, who became the public relations chairman for 'avoidance of perjury teachers'
- Considering the social impact, the first trial should be overturned
- Kim Jin-sung 'Fine 500'
- Chances of overturning the appeals court 'more than 90%'

Jo Ki-yeon
- Lee Jae-myung and Kim Jin-sung '22nd Call'... Decisive reason for innocence
- The contents of Lee Jae-myung's act, clearly revealed in the transcript,
- The judgment of the first trial is that there is no 'specific teaching act'
- It is not likely to be overturned in the appeal trial.
◆ Shinyul: YTN Radio Shinyul's news head-to-head match. We'll start with the first part of the Justice League today. I'll be with two lawyers. But only one person came to the studio right now. First of all, lawyer Park Sang-soo will listen through the phone. I think there was an accident in front of me on the way here. By the way. I really had a lot of accidents today. I was going to school in the morning and it was really hard because of the accident. There were three accidents. I've never seen such a case while driving, but lawyer Cho Ki-yeon is in the studio now. How are you?

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: Yes, hello. I'm Cho Ki-yeon's lawyer.

◆ Shin Yul: And lawyer Park Sang-soo is currently on the phone. Lawyer Park, your phone hasn't been called yet. Later on, let's talk with lawyer Cho Ki-yeon. I have a lot of questions to ask lawyer Cho about this. Yesterday, how did you see CEO Lee Jae-myung's perjury teacher not guilty in the first trial?

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: I've been expecting that I'll be innocent on other shows. The reason is that the most important evidence, as the Democratic Party of Korea has generally said, is the transcript between Kim Jin-sung and Lee Jae-myung, right? There were three phone calls on the 22nd and 24th, and the transcript was released and prosecuted with it. If you look at the contents, the transcript does not reveal the teacher's request to make a false statement against his memory on a specific issue, which is usually convicted of perjury. Rather, there is no need to talk about things that do not exist while evoking the usual demands of testimony and these memories. You don't have to make new facts to remember. I keep saying this over and over again. Anyway, the strong evidence is this transcript, and given the contents of the transcript submitted to the prosecution as key evidence of the teacher, I don't think this can be seen as a perjury teacher. The court now says that the overall summary of this press release is about 11 pages long, about 80 pages long. I wrote this specific content in very detail. That's what I wrote about.

◆ Shin Yul: Lawyer Park?

■ Park Sang-soo: Yes.

◆ Can you hear me well?

■ Park Sang-soo: Yes, I can hear you well.

◆ Shin Yul: Yes. Thank you for your hard work. Where are you today because of the accident?

■ Park Sang-soo: We're talking about it on the shoulder right now around Hapjeong Station.

◆ Shin Yul: I see. By the way, how did you see lawyer Park yesterday? I'll call the trial

■ Park Sang-soo: I think lawyer Cho Ki-yeon has already secured the ruling. We haven't received the ruling yet because we're listening to what you're saying. As a result, the Democratic Party of Korea seems to have received it because it is a party, but there may be some points that are not enough to explain in the absence of a ruling, but there were some aspects that I didn't understand when looking at the explanatory data of the court. The most representative thing to say is that I never asked you to tell me about things you don't remember, and I told you to tell me only things you remember or at least not to deny. Didn't the whole nation listen to the 30-minute recording of this part? However, I was told to recall the parts that I clearly don't remember, and then there were parts where I sent a summary of arguments about parts that were unclear. But I think it's a little out of context that I never asked you to tell me about the parts you don't remember. And then the second point that we see as a bit strange is that the court has clearly acknowledged the teaching behavior. And Kim Jin-sung, who was found guilty of perjury, does not explain the reason for perjury. But they say there was no teacher. So what do you mean? It is said that there was an act of teaching, but there was no intention of the teacher, but the second aspect is that this is a little incomprehensible and inconsistent. Lastly, Kim Jin-sung said that there was no intention of the teacher because he did not know if he would be a witness and that there was a teacher's act without knowing whether he would testify. Now, if this happens, the so-called build-up teacher who can be an important witness will be able to teach perjury in advance and then punish him as a perjury teacher when the person goes and perjury is eliminated. Now, there is a problem that the court will be able to deal with the countless perjury unfolding in general cases. At these three points, I thought that the prosecution is sufficiently competitive in the appeal trial.

◆ Sin Yul: How do you watch that? So, I don't watch the whole thing, I just watch the news and ask, but I mean, I wasn't a witness at the time of calling. But since I became a witness later, I don't know if I can be a witness or not when I called, so isn't that what lawyer Park is saying right now? How do you see it?

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: So the first trial court actually sets up the process of reaching this testimony in detail one by one by one. There is a phone call on December 22, 2018, which is considered the first phone call, so CEO Lee Jae-myung's teaching behavior. I have a phone call on the 24th. There is an act of sending a summary of the argument, and there is also a content about the process of writing an affidavit written by Kim Jin-sung. Now, there is even the preparation of this witness questionnaire made through it, and in the process, the second call was requested to come out as a witness until December 24, but it has not been confirmed yet. The reason why I saw innocence as important here is that I talk about many things on the phone on the 22nd. Wasn't there such a consultation to drive representative Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit? In fact, the testimony that representative Lee Jae-myung needed was that part. Now Kim Jin-sung says he doesn't know much about that. If you say you don't know, you have to keep saying this to get the evidence. I have to say repeatedly that I want you to do it, but that's not the case, but the phone call was made that day to confirm that there was an atmosphere to drive the overall atmosphere. I am sending you the summary of the arguments on December 22nd and that day. And the call on the 24th is made after seeing the summary of the argument. If you saw the summary of the argument, you would have been familiar with what was judged as perjury or what Lee Jae-myung wanted, and if you said that you intended to persuade Kim Jin-sung with the intention of teaching him perjury, you should have had a conversation that measured those details in the call on the 24th, but the call on the 24th was also about the core content of what Lee Jae-myung claims and falsely accused him, so instead of confirming the details of the testimony, Kim Jin-sung, who knows the details of the testimony to support it, talked on the phone on the 20th. Just do it. There was this kind of atmosphere. I'll do the same. So, even if there was an act of sending a summary of the argument, if you look at the summary of the argument on the 22nd and look at the flow from the call on the 24th, CEO Lee Jae-myung did not ask Kim Jin-sung to testify falsely at the time.

◆ Sin Yul: How did you like it? What about our lawyer Park?

■ Park Sang-soo: First of all, there was a witness request above. Since we haven't received the ruling yet, we thought we should look at the exact facts in this area, but in a situation where there was even a request for witnesses, if we talk about it with nuance in general and organize the contents to be perjured, we will not be punished as perjured teachers even if the perpetrator is punished for perjured, and the court has shown that the perjured teachers who benefit from perjured teachers will no longer be punished as perjured teachers. In the future, this ruling is not only innocent representative Lee Jae-myung. In the future, such perjury will occur very frequently in numerous criminal justice cases, and even if perjury is punished, it can be seen as a very serious case where perjury teachers are not punished and a kind of decision to become a public relations chairman for education. So in the future, I think lawyers will teach perjury in this way. I think I'll be ordering that. And I think the perjury teacher will also ask lawyers to plead in this way if the perjury teacher is familiar with this ruling. Then, this will lead to the collapse of the entire criminal justice system in Korea. So now, we thought, "Oh, I didn't apply for a witness, but if there was already a witness request, I think this can be sufficiently reversed in consideration of such social repercussions in the High Court at the appeal trial."

◆ Sin-ryul: The teacher acknowledges, but there is no intention of the teacher. I don't even know this.

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: There is a legal order in judging whether or not perjury teachers are guilty. When judging the facts of the requirements, the first thing to do is to see if there was perjury from Jung Beom. In this case, the contents of each of the six perjury were prosecuted, of which No. 2 and No. 3 were not guilty, so they were acquitted because they said it was not a statement contrary to memory, and the other 4 were now guilty of perjury by Kim Jin-sung. There was an act of perjury. First, we judged that there was perjury, and then we look at whether there was teaching behavior. Teacher behavior is now a request to testify on the phone. Because of a request for a testimony, I saw this as a rude act. The next thing to see is the teacher's intention, so the teacher's intention is to make the act a regular offender with the purpose of perjury. There were things like this to Kim Jin-sung that you don't remember, right? If you do it like this, it's advantageous to me, so do it for me. It's the intention of this teacher. But if I repeat it again, I saw that the teacher did not intend to testify to the extent that I don't remember it so much in the transcript of the 22nd and 24th call.

◆ Voiceover: That's an area of interpretation. So,

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: This is a legal judgment requirement. Now, the judgment of whether or not the act actually happened is the domain of interpretation and judgment of the court. However, considering the entire contents of the transcript and various circumstances and circumstances made before and after the transcript, the first trial court sent the details of the phone call and the statement. In addition, even if you look at the process of preparing the affidavit, there was no specific teaching act that asked Lee Jae-myung to make a detailed statement about his actions to drive Lee Jae-myung as the main culprit, and there was no perjury intention to give perjury, so even if he had a teaching act, it was only a request for a normal testimony and not a teaching of perjury, and even if it was considered as a teaching act, the perjury teacher's crime is not established because there was no intention to realize it through the teacher's intentional and perjury inspection.

◆ Sin-ryul: And so this is, and in fact, was there any mention of the motive for perjury? So, for example, you don't have to listen to me, right? In fact, if we look at it, it's true that there was a teacher. There was no intention. There was a teacher. Then, if you listen to it, Kim Jin-sung's name doesn't have to be heard, for example. But this person was fined 5 million won for perjury. Then why did you just tell a lie because perjury is a lie?

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: He's a perjury, so he's the real culprit. If a criminal legally denies it, we even look at the motive of having to make a bequest in order to prove his guilt. But now it's a case where he confessed. This is because, in that case, the motive is not clear, and if so, there is an act of teaching. I don't connect it right away. Therefore, it is a ruling that does not necessarily judge the motive, but only the part of whether or not perjury was taught among the acts that are considered to be teacher behavior should be strictly considered. That's what the ruling does in the actual perjury teacher crime. There are times when it motivates you. There are many cases where perjury and perjury teachers are established when the request cannot be met for some other business reason or for some hierarchical social status issue. But in this case, I actually express my intention to help even if I don't have that clear motive. However, it does not appear that the expression of intention to help went beyond the scope of the testimony that Lee Jae-myung usually requested and asked him to testify, but Lee Jae-myung's perjury teacher cannot be held responsible for such testimony.

◆ Shin Yul: Lawyer Park, yes, how do you see it?

■ Park Sang-soo: Oh, so let me briefly explain what this is. To give you a brief explanation, so CEO Lee Jae-myung said, "This is what this ruling is like. Representative Lee Jae-myung sent a summary of his argument and talked about it, but I don't know why Kim Jin-sung was just in his heart. It came from the heart and deliberately gave perjury in favor of CEO Lee Jae-myung. So now CEO Lee Jae-myung has no intention of teaching, but Kim Jin-sung, who had no motive for the crime, just looked at the summary of his argument and just did it because he liked it, so Kim Jin-sung received a fine of 5 million won and Lee Jae-myung, who acted as a teacher, was not intentional, so get acquitted. This is a good interpretation for the general public to understand this ruling. Then, if you explain it like this, there are more than one question, right? Of course, you can think that there is no way that you just came out of your heart and did it without a motive for the crime. If the prosecution disputes that point properly at the appeals court, I think the appeals court will make a judgment in consideration of the enormous perjury that will occur in the Korean criminal justice system in the future.

◆ Sin Yul: Speak now.

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: So, depending on the case where the motivation part is important, it might be. But you can't even see your heart's intention. However, such transactions between teachers and perjury are often revealed in cases, so both are often convicted. I don't think the court judged this case until the need to hear the inner intention. Because the contents of Lee Jae-myung's representative actions are clearly revealed through the transcript, but anyway, at the end of the transcript, Kim Jin-sung talks about the contents related to the Korea Food Research Institute. Among the contents, Kim In-seop also mentions it. However, CEO Lee Jae-myung claims that the relationship can be connected to Baekhyun-dong during the conversation, but if you look at the phone call at the time, you don't know that Kim In-seop was arrested at the time. If you look at the phone conversation with CEO Lee Jae-myung, Kim In-seop talks about that. Anyway, it seems that Kim In-seop and Kim Jin-sung were probably connected for business at that time. There may certainly be vague expectations of such things. However, I don't think there is a need to judge the motive for perjury enough to use it as the basis for the acquittal of this case. Lawyer Park Sang-soo talks about this ruling as if it created a new law that is completely different from the existing perjury or perjury teacher case, and it is not a wrong judgment that will have a significant impact on the judicial order of perjury or perjury teacher crime. It is easy to understand if you look at the entire contents. When this case itself has a very public transcript and there are many prejudices that this is perjury teaching, but the contents of the entire judgment cannot be different from any existing interpretation of the law because the court explained in detail the requirements for the establishment of the usual perjury and perjury teaching crime, and came to the conclusion that it was innocent. It was not a newly created law to acquit Representative Lee Jae-myung in consideration of various political situations or these. It did not develop into such a logic.

◆ Shin Yul: Lawyer Park Sang-soo, another thing that the general public is curious about, is it not illegal to provide a summary of the argument?

■ Park Sang-soo: So in general, providing a document that summarizes the contents of perjury in the case of perjury is a very important factor in acknowledging the perjury teacher's crime. And it's even more so if the content is reflected in the statement. However, in this case, he admitted to the teacher's behavior in that regard, but he pleaded not guilty because he did not acknowledge the intention of the teacher on the grounds that he did not elaborate on the contents of such documents. So this part is a very strange part, and I don't need to say it in words in the future. If you just write it and send it to me and ask me to look at it and talk to you for this purpose, the perjury teacher will no longer be established. Also, one of the points that lawyer Cho Ki-yeon said earlier is a very interesting point, but there are few cases where there is clear evidence that this part is recorded like this in the perjury teacher case. Also, it's very interesting that there's a little bit of detail about motives and things like that, but rather, the evidence is clear, so there's no need to consider motives. So, if you leave evidence like this, you don't have to question your motives, but you just came from your heart after looking at the summary of your argument. He told us the very interesting result that if you give perjury from your heart, those who give perjury will be punished, and those who give perjury will be acquitted without the intention of the teacher. So in the future, people with high status and a lot of money will do perjury investigations in this way.

◆ Shin Yul: As far as I know, it's not illegal to provide a summary of arguments like this, do you do it a lot? Who is this likely to be a witness?

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: There are cases where you send it for reference, but most of the time, you're a little careful. Instead of sending a summary of a perjury teacher's argument in case it gets caught, the perjury teacher usually confirms in advance what false statements will be made between the perjury teacher and the perjury teacher. So, like this case, it's an unusual case that started with a case before 2016, and it went after another five years with what was stated in the trial 16 years later, and it was charged with perjury. There's never been an event that goes on at such a time interval. So, as lawyer Park Sang-soo said, there are not many cases where such direct evidence is revealed like a transcript. But the similar thing is like a confirmation letter. However, it is easy to check the facts in such simple cases. So, in order to make the facts that did not exist, the contents in which the perjury and the perjury teacher match the false facts of the relationship are revealed in the context and facts, and the decisive evidence becomes a fact-check. I submit it with the contents that are not written and send it to you. Then it's perjury teacher to state it as it is. But isn't it already confirmed that the contents of the transcript were not submitted for perjury for the purpose of the teacher, but for the usual testimony? All that remains is a judgment on whether this can be seen as a perjury teacher or as a normal testimony. However, if there is a testimony that does not reflect what Lee Jae-myung, who is said to be a teacher, asked for, or asked for a statement, there is no such thing as what Lee Jae-myung did, his remarks, or transcripts, but if I infer what Kim Jin-sung said, this logic is the same now. Then I don't know why you did it, but I think it could have been because of the improvement of the future expectations for a business I mentioned earlier. But this court didn't have to judge that. You can judge based on the contents of the transcript, but there was no reason to question Kim Jin-sung's motives.

◆ Shin Yul: Lawyer Park, this ruling is going to go up to the second trial, right? What do you think is the probability of being overturned in the 2nd and 3rd trials?

■ Park Sang-soo: I have to look at the verdict for sure now. However, I haven't seen the ruling yet, so there is that part, but I personally think it is more than 90% based on the explanatory data of the current court, that is, the court. And the higher court examines the objective impact this will have on other issues in the case of perjury and perjury teachers in the future. So, of course, those aspects are important when looking at specific issues, but since the higher court sees them broadly, this is a very well-known event in that respect, so I think it's highly likely that the higher court will go back to the principle and judge them. Another important point that is good for this ruling is the enforcement ordinance of the Prosecutor's Office, which was made by representative Han Dong-hoon when he was the Minister of Justice. I acknowledged the legality of this enforcement decree. So, the Democratic Party of Korea has repeatedly said that the enforcement ordinance of the Prosecutor's Office is illegal and unconstitutional on this part. It seems a little undesirable attitude to accept only the part that you like in the latter part of the sentence and not the part that you don't like in the front part. In that respect, I would like to say that the Democratic Party of Korea should now acknowledge that part of the legal judgment on the enforcement ordinance of the Prosecutor's Office.

◇ Cho Gi-yeon: I don't know. I'm looking at lawyer Park Sang-soo differently, but I didn't see the whole sentence. But now I've only looked at the important parts, and I've recently looked at all the cases of perjury and perjury teacher crimes that have been up for five years to see a certain judgment or management. In the application of the overall legal principles, it is no different from what the court previously judged. So there was a teacher now.
◆ Shin Yul: I don't mean to.

◇ Cho Ki-yeon: There is no intention or perjury, but if you look at it within that range, it's just that, but it's not different when you look at why the entire sentence is composed like that and why the judgment is composed like that for innocence. I don't think it's likely to be overturned at the appeal trial.

◆ Shin Yul: Okay. I'll stop listening to you two. Thank you.

◇ Jo Gi-yeon, ■ Park Sang-soo: Thank you.

◆ Shin Yul: We've been with two lawyers, Cho Ki-yeon and Park Sang-soo.