Lee Jae-myung's 'False Information Disclosure' Fate Decided by 'Impromptu Debate' vs 'Prepared Interview'

2018 Supreme Court Full Bench "Impromptu and Continuous Disputes, Limitations in Clarity of Expression"
‘Baekhyeon-dong and Kim Moon-gi Cases’ Prosecution "Statements at National Assembly Audit and Interviews... Active and Persistent Nature"

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is greeting Chuseok holiday travelers at Yongsan Station in Seoul on the 8th. Photo by National Assembly Press Photographers Group

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was indicted in 2018 for false statement publication under the Public Official Election Act but maintained his position as Governor of Gyeonggi Province after the Supreme Court overturned the guilty verdict in the second trial, is now facing the question of whether he can receive another not guilty verdict this time.

On the 13th, cautious speculation arose both inside and outside the legal community that, although this case involving statements made during the recent presidential election is similar to the 2018 case, differences in the location and circumstances of the statements?which the Supreme Court previously cited as decisive grounds for acquittal?may lead the court to a different judgment.

Previously, during the 2018 local elections, Lee was tried on charges of spreading false information related to his older brother. At that time, when asked by an opposing candidate whether he had tried to commit his brother to a psychiatric hospital, Lee responded, "I never did." In another TV debate, he also stated, "The opposing candidate's claim that I tried to commit my brother to a psychiatric hospital is not true."

The prosecution judged Lee's statements as constituting false statement publication. However, the court's decisions were divided. The first trial acquitted him, but the second trial overturned the acquittal on the false statement publication charge and sentenced him to a fine of 3 million won, which would invalidate his election. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled in Lee's favor.

Lee's case was referred to the Supreme Court's full bench, where all 12 justices rendered their judgment. At that time, Justice Kim Seon-su recused himself because he had previously served as Lee's defense attorney in another trial.

The majority opinion (Justices Kim Myung-soo, Kwon Soon-il, Kim Jae-hyung, Park Jung-hwa, Min Yoo-sook, Noh Jeong-hee, and Kim Sang-hwan) stated, "Unlike speeches or similar cases where one-sided opinions are expressed based on pre-prepared materials, debates between candidates involve questions and answers, claims and rebuttals, conducted spontaneously and continuously within a limited time, so the clarity of such expressions inevitably has limitations."

They further held, "Participating in candidate debates by asking and answering questions or making claims and rebuttals cannot be punished under the false statement publication crime unless there are special circumstances such as actively expressing false information with the intent to unilaterally disclose false facts regardless of the debate's topic or context."

The Supreme Court thus established a precedent that even if candidates make somewhat unclear statements during heated debates aimed at winning elections, such statements cannot be punished as false statement publication.

The prosecution, having already faced Lee once, used this Supreme Court ruling as a guideline. They concluded that Lee's statements made at the Gyeonggi Province National Assembly audit in October last year regarding the Baekhyeon-dong development?"If the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport does not approve, they threatened to accuse us of dereliction of duty..."?and his December appearance on SBS as a 20th presidential candidate, where he said about the late Kim Moon-gi, former head of Development Division 1 at Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, "I did not know him while serving as mayor; I got to know him after becoming governor," were not made passively or spontaneously within a limited time but were active and continuous in nature, in light of the Supreme Court precedent.

The prosecution viewed that the places where Lee made these statements were neither heated debate forums nor typical broadcast interviews where questions are usually coordinated in advance, and thus his remarks about Baekhyeon-dong and former Director Kim clearly constituted false statement publication.

Based on the mobile phone and laptop of former Director Kim, testimony from Yoo Dong-gyu, former Planning Director of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, photos released by the bereaved family, voice recordings, and testimonies from related parties, the prosecution confirmed circumstances indicating that Lee knew former Director Kim not only during his tenure as mayor promoting the Daejang-dong project but also from his time as a lawyer.

Regarding the Baekhyeon-dong development, the prosecution found from official documents and investigations of related officials that Seongnam City had never requested a four-stage zoning upgrade from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and that the decision was made independently by Seongnam City.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.