On the 1st, the Supreme Court overturned the ‘violation of the Public Official Election Act’ case involving presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party of Korea, delivering a ruling of guilty. In this case, candidate Lee previously received a guilty verdict in the first trial and was acquitted in the second trial, but the Supreme Court's ruling means he will face a retrial at the Seoul High Court. Legal experts predict that 'it will be difficult for a ruling to be finalized before the June 3 presidential election.'
With the Supreme Court's guilty ruling announced on that day, there are analyses that it could negatively affect candidate Lee during the presidential election process. However, at this moment, as a guilty verdict has not been finalized, there are no legal obstacles to Lee's candidacy for the June 3 presidential election.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ruling was based on the majority opinion of 10 out of the 12 members, including Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and 11 Supreme Court justices, participating in the en banc hearing. The en banc panel comes to a conclusion based on a majority opinion (7 members).
The Supreme Court determined that candidate Lee's ‘comments regarding Kim Moon-ki’s golf and the comments related to Baekhyeon-dong’ were all 'false declarations of fact,' contrary to the second trial's ruling of not guilty, stating that 'the law was misinterpreted' in that case.
◇ Supreme Court: Lee's comments that 'I did not play golf with Kim Moon-ki during our overseas trip' are false declarations
The Supreme Court ruled that candidate Lee's statement made on a TV broadcast and radio in December 2021, indicating that he did not play golf with the late Kim Moon-ki, a key official of the Daejang-dong project, during their overseas trip, constituted false declarations of fact.
During the last presidential election, as the Daejang-dong corruption allegation grew, media reports emerged claiming that candidate Lee traveled to Australia and New Zealand in January 2015 with Kim Moon-ki and played golf there. While candidate Lee claimed he did not know Kim Moon-ki well, there was a sustained offensive suggesting they had a closer relationship. Additionally, the People Power Party released photos taken during the trip featuring candidate Lee and Kim Moon-ki.
Candidate Lee's statements concerning this matter can be broadly categorized into two. He appeared on Channel A and stated, '(The People Power Party) took a group photo of four people as if I played golf. Upon checking, I found that they only showed a part of the entire group photo. It was manipulated.' He also mentioned on a radio broadcast, 'Although I went on an overseas trip with Kim Moon-ki, he was a subordinate, so I do not remember him.'
The second trial court stated that it would be difficult to punish candidate Lee for all these statements as false declarations of fact. Regarding the photos released by the People Power Party, it mentioned that 'there is room to see the People Power Party's expansion of a group photo of 10 people to four as manipulation, and since golf was not played on the day the photo was taken, there are no issues.' It stated that the remark 'I do not remember going on a trip with Kim Moon-ki' only supports the notion that he did not know Kim Moon-ki and lacks independent significance.
However, the Supreme Court concluded that this judgment was incorrect. The Supreme Court stated, 'The act of playing golf between the defendant (Lee Jae-myung) and Kim Moon-ki is an independent fact affecting voters' judgment regarding their relationship and cannot be seen merely as a supporting argument about perception.' It continued, 'The defendant (Lee Jae-myung) played golf with Kim Moon-ki during the overseas trip, thus his golf comment falls under false statements regarding the candidate's conduct.'
◇ 'Lee's comments regarding Baekhyeon-dong's land use change under pressure from the Ministry of Land' are false declarations
The Supreme Court also ruled candidate Lee's comments concerning Baekhyeon-dong to be false declarations. During the last presidential election in 2015, while Lee was mayor of Seongnam, it was alleged that the land use designation for the site of the Korean Food Research Institute's relocation in Baekhyeon-dong was elevated from 'green space' to 'semi-residential area' in four stages in order to provide favoritism to Kim In-seob, who had been Lee's campaign chief.
In October 2021, during a National Assembly audit, candidate Lee responded to these allegations by claiming that he 'changed the land use out of necessity upon receiving a request from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.' He also stated that 'public officials from the Ministry of Land threatened that they would raise the issue of dereliction of duty if the change was not granted.'
In response, the second trial court stated that candidate Lee's remarks constituted opinion expression, and thus could not be punished.
However, the Supreme Court stated, 'The remarks regarding Baekhyeon-dong are declarations of fact and are not merely exaggerated expressions or abstract opinions.' It added, 'Seongnam City pursued the land designation increase based on its own judgment, and there was no pressure from the Ministry of Land on Seongnam City during that process.'
◇ Judges Lee Heung-gu and Oh Kyung-mi, appointed by former President Moon, dissenting opinions
Meanwhile, Justices Lee Heung-gu and Oh Kyung-mi expressed dissenting opinions, stating that Lee's 'comments regarding Kim Moon-ki's golf and Baekhyeon-dong' could not be punished for false declarations of fact. Both justices were appointed by former President Moon Jae-in.
The two justices noted concerning the golf comments, 'The statements are merely about events or social relations that occurred six or seven years ago and could be interpreted as meaning that the photos released by the People Power Party were manipulated.' Regarding the Baekhyeon-dong comments, they commented that, 'Overall, they constitute opinion expression, and just because there might be slight differences or exaggerated expressions does not mean they can be seen as false facts.'