If the Arrest Motion for Lee Jae-myung Is Rejected Today, What Is the Prosecutors' Next Step?

Non-Detention Indictment and Deferred Prosecution with Warrants for Other Cases
Representative Lee's Formal Trial for Election Law Violation Starts This Week
Attention on Minister Han Dong-hoon's Remarks and Presentation of New Evidence

As the arrest consent motion for Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who has had arrest warrants requested over the ‘Daejang-dong’ and ‘Seongnam FC’ allegations, is expected to be rejected in the National Assembly on the afternoon of the 27th, attention is turning to the prosecution’s next steps.

For the prosecution, it seems they will consider various options, including the so-called ‘salami tactics’ of requesting an arrest warrant again against Lee for the Ssangbangwool Group’s ‘lawyer fee payment’ allegations or the ‘North Korea remittance’ allegations currently under investigation by the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, to determine which would be most effective.

On the 24th, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea (left), is speaking at the Supreme Council meeting held at the National Assembly, and Han Dong-hoon, Minister of Justice, is explaining the reasons for the arrest consent request for Democratic Party lawmaker Roh Woong-rae at the plenary session of the National Assembly on December 28 last year.

On the 27th, political and legal circles widely expect that the arrest consent motion against Lee will be rejected in the National Assembly that afternoon. Although the Democratic Party decided not to set a party line and to leave the vote to the free discretion of its members, the party leadership has emphasized an ‘overwhelming rejection,’ and many members of the People Power Party also believe it is advantageous to prolong Lee’s ‘judicial risk’ until before next year’s general election, so a significant number of dissenting votes are anticipated.

If the arrest consent motion against Lee, a sitting member of the National Assembly who is a suspect, is rejected during the session, the court will dismiss the arrest warrant requested by the prosecution. Subsequently, the prosecution’s options include ▲ non-custodial indictment for the ‘Daejang-dong’ and ‘Seongnam FC’ cases ▲ postponing indictment and requesting a warrant for other cases ▲ bundling multiple charges again to request an arrest warrant, roughly three main possibilities.

First, the prosecution can non-custodially indict Lee on charges such as breach of trust under the Specific Economic Crimes Act related to the ‘Daejang-dong’ allegations included in the previously requested arrest warrant, or third-party bribery related to the ‘Seongnam FC’ allegations. Since investigations into these two allegations are nearly complete and Lee has effectively refused further summons by substituting most responses with written statements, it is possible to send him to trial and have the court make a judgment.

The second option is to delay indictment on these two allegations and conduct supplementary investigations, while requesting an arrest warrant again against Lee for the ‘Ssangbangwool Group North Korea remittance and lawyer fee payment’ allegations under investigation by the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office or the ‘Baekhyeon-dong’ allegations under investigation by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. Around the prosecution, there are remarks that the North Korea remittance allegations alone are serious enough to independently justify requesting an arrest warrant. Recently, former Ssangbangwool Group Chairman Kim Sung-tae has been providing detailed testimony related to Lee’s close aide, former Peace Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young, and Gyeonggi Province, which strengthens this possibility.

The opposition parties criticize the prosecution for using ‘salami tactics’ by splitting the various allegations involving Lee to request arrest warrants. However, for the Democratic Party, which must endure criticism of being a ‘bulletproof National Assembly’ by having the arrest consent motion rejected once more, or for Lee, who must prevent defections among party members and supporters, this is an extremely burdensome situation. In a public opinion poll released the day before the first vote on the arrest consent motion against Lee, nearly half of respondents (47.9%) answered that the motion should pass, but if a second motion is submitted to the plenary session, public opinion is likely to be much more unfavorable to Lee.

The final possibility is that the prosecution, assuming it will indict Lee on multiple allegations later, bundles all remaining allegations including the North Korea remittance with the ‘Daejang-dong’ and ‘Seongnam FC’ allegations included in this warrant and requests an arrest warrant again. While respecting the National Assembly’s decision, it is highly unlikely that the prosecution will re-request a warrant solely on the ‘Daejang-dong’ and ‘Seongnam FC’ allegations after the arrest consent motion is rejected, as in ordinary cases where warrants are dismissed. However, there are no restrictions in the National Assembly Act or the Criminal Procedure Act preventing the prosecution from requesting a warrant again for the same charges after an arrest consent motion is rejected. If the second arrest consent motion passes and a warrant review hearing is held, it is actually more advantageous for the prosecution to have the charges related to the relatively well-proven ‘Seongnam FC’ allegations reviewed together.

When the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office Seongnam Branch decided to bundle the ‘Seongnam FC’ case it investigated with the ‘Daejang-dong’ case investigated by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office for the first arrest warrant request, it was the same situation. Whether the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office will seek to secure Lee’s custody again with the Ssangbangwool Group-related allegations under investigation after the first warrant was dismissed due to the rejection of the arrest consent motion, and which allegations will be bundled for the warrant request, is a matter for Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok to decide. However, considering the gravity of requesting an arrest warrant against the opposition party leader, it cannot be ruled out that the political judgment of Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon or President Yoon Suk-yeol may influence Lee’s decision.

Meanwhile, Lee must appear in person at the Seoul Central District Court this week to face trial on charges of falsely publicizing during a 2021 broadcast interview, when he was the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, that he did not know the late Kim Moon-gi, head of Development Division 1 at Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, during his tenure as mayor. Article 270 of the Public Official Election Act (Mandatory Provisions on Trial Periods for Election Crimes) stipulates that trials for election crimes must be conducted promptly ahead of other trials, with the first trial to be completed within six months from the date of indictment, and the second and third trials within three months from the date of the previous judgment. If Lee is indicted for the ‘Daejang-dong’ and ‘Seongnam FC’ allegations, he may have to appear in court two to three times a week for trial.

Before the vote on Lee’s arrest consent motion, voices demanding Lee’s decision have already emerged among senior Democratic Party figures such as former National Assembly Secretary-General Yoo In-tae and non-Lee factions including lawmakers Seol Hoon and Cho Eung-cheon. Last year, amid criticism of ‘Lee Jae-myung bulletproofing,’ the Democratic Party amended Article 80 of its party rules (Sanctions against Corruption Involvement) to stipulate suspension of duties for party officials indicted on corruption-related charges, but included an exception allowing the party’s executive committee to decide not to apply it if the indictment is recognized as politically motivated or unfair. However, regardless of the application of party rules, if Lee, already indicted for election law violations, is additionally indicted or has an arrest warrant requested again, his position within the party is expected to significantly weaken.

The vote on Lee’s arrest consent motion is scheduled to take place at the National Assembly plenary session starting at 2:30 p.m. that day. Ahead of the vote, Justice Minister Han is expected to explain the reasons for requesting Lee’s arrest consent, and Lee will make a personal statement appealing against the unfairness of the arrest warrant requested by the prosecution. Political circles are paying great attention, with some calling it a ‘preliminary battle between the next ruling and opposition presidential candidates.’ In particular, it will be worth watching whether Minister Han presents new circumstantial evidence related to Lee’s charges during his explanation of the necessity of Lee’s arrest, as he did previously with lawmaker Roh Woong-rae.

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