Lee Jae-myung's Detention Decision Today... Likely to Depend on 'Risk of Evidence Tampering' Assessment

The warrant hearing that will determine the fate of Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, will be held on the 26th. Legal circles predict that whether Lee will be detained depends on the judgment of the judge in charge of warrants regarding the 'risk of evidence destruction.'

If the warrant is dismissed, the prosecution will face strong backlash, but since the momentum of the investigation does not completely disappear after a warrant is dismissed once, the burden is relatively less compared to Lee. Even if the warrant is dismissed, there is a Plan B to either reapply for the warrant after supplementary investigation or prosecute without detention.

On the other hand, from Lee's perspective, if he is detained this time, he is likely to face a situation where continuing his political career becomes practically difficult. If the judiciary rules that 'the charges in the warrant are substantiated and there is a risk of evidence destruction,' it will be difficult to frame the case as 'opposition party suppression by the Yoon Seok-yeol government prosecution' any longer.

Within the Democratic Party, the pro-Lee faction believes that even if the warrant is issued, Lee will maintain his position as leader and conduct 'prison nomination,' but the prevailing view is that it is unrealistic for the party to fully bear the judicial risks of a leader who is detained and on trial due to personal corruption and still fight the general election.

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who is on the 16th day of his hunger strike, is passing in front of Democratic Party lawmakers who are holding a support sit-in in the National Assembly corridor on the 15th. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

Dependent on Evidence Supporting Charges and Risk of Evidence Destruction

An experienced chief judge in warrant hearings said on the day, "The legal grounds for detention are, in any case, unknown residence, risk of evidence destruction, risk of flight, and substantiation of criminal charges," adding, "In the past, when crimes were serious and heavy sentences were expected, there used to be a separate section under the grounds for detention indicating 'heavy sentence expected' under the risk of flight, but nowadays it is rarely used."

He continued, "Ultimately, whether Lee is detained will depend on how well the prosecution substantiates Lee's charges with concrete evidence and the judge's judgment on the risk of evidence destruction."

Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Reasons for Detention) states in paragraph 1 that there must be reasonable grounds to suspect the defendant committed a crime, and lists as grounds for detention: ▲lack of fixed residence ▲risk of evidence destruction ▲risk of flight. Paragraph 2 enumerates factors to consider when reviewing grounds for detention, including ▲seriousness of the crime ▲risk of recidivism ▲risk of harm to victims and important witnesses.

The prosecution argues that if the crime is serious, the possibility of flight or evidence destruction naturally increases, thus the necessity of detention is greater. However, the court, since the law considers the seriousness of the crime only as a factor to consider, holds a strong view that even if the crime is serious, if there is no risk of flight or evidence destruction or sufficient evidence has already been secured, the defendant should be tried without detention as a principle.

Since Lee has a fixed residence and is unlikely to flee, the decision on his detention ultimately hinges on the 'substantiation of charges' and 'risk of evidence destruction,' especially how the judge in charge of warrants views the 'risk of evidence destruction.'

Prosecution Likely to Emphasize Past Perjury Coaching, Evidence Destruction History, and Circumstances... Will Lee's Voice Recording Be Decisive Evidence?

During the pre-detention suspect interrogation starting in the morning, the prosecution is expected to emphasize Lee's past attempts to destroy evidence related to his charges or coaching favorable perjury, aiming to persuade the court.

These points are detailed in the prosecution's warrant application submitted to the court and the Ministry of Justice's request for consent to arrest submitted to the National Assembly.

The prosecution highlights that Lee ▲coached perjury during his 2018 criminal trial ▲claimed false facts such as 'the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport had no choice but to approve the land use change due to threats' in the Baekhyeon-dong case, provided 'guidelines' to coordinate statements among those involved, and after indictment, directly persuaded or pressured officials to give such statements ▲made false claims to the media that he had severed ties with Kim In-seop, former CEO of Korea Housing Technology and a broker in the Baekhyeon-dong project, since 2010, but Kim later confessed to the prosecution about his friendship with Lee after receiving objective evidence ▲in the North Korea remittance case, there were abnormal attempts to destroy and manipulate evidence, such as leaking internal Gyeonggi Province documents, witness interrogation recordings, and posting trial testimonies on social media to pressure other witnesses ▲caused former Gyeonggi Province Peace Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young, who is on trial for the North Korea remittance case, to retract prosecution testimony stating that the remittance process was reported to Lee, all of which support concerns that Lee might destroy evidence or contaminate testimony related to his charges.

Among these, regarding Lee's perjury coaching, the prosecution has secured a voice recording of Lee coaching perjury and a prosecution statement from a party who testified in court as requested by Lee about facts unknown to them, which is expected to be the most unfavorable circumstance for Lee. (Refer to our exclusive articles on March 26, "Prosecution Secures Voice Recording Suspected of Lee Jae-myung Coaching Perjury," and March 29, "Lee Jae-myung Trial 'Perjury' Businessman Admits Charges.")

In December 2018, Lee was indicted and tried for violating the Public Official Election Act by denying involvement in the 'impersonation of a prosecutor' case, for which he was convicted, during a TV debate as a Gyeonggi Province governor candidate.

However, the prosecution believes that Kim, who worked as an aide to former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byung-ryang, was involved in facilitating permits for the Baekhyeon-dong development project and that Lee, knowing Kim's influence, approached Kim through former Chief of Staff Jeong Jin-sang and Kim In-seop to demand false testimony.

According to the request for consent to arrest Lee, the prosecution possesses a call recording with Lee persistently urging Kim to commit perjury, saying things like "If you remember that part, it would help," "It would be best if you say there was a tacit understanding," and "You can just say you heard that," and is expected to play this recording or use the transcript as evidence supporting the necessity of Lee's detention during the warrant hearing.

In particular, the prosecution is expected to submit evidence including messages showing Lee directly sent his defense brief to Kim via Telegram, drafts of witness examination questions sent through lawyers, and Kim's confession that he committed perjury because he could not refuse the demands of a sitting governor.

According to the prosecution, after committing perjury in Lee's trial, Kim called Lee "hyungnim" (older brother) and sent messages requesting favors, to which Lee replied to all messages and even sent a condolence wreath to Kim's mother's funeral on behalf of Gyeonggi Province.

Regarding the substantiation of Lee's charges, the prosecution is expected to argue that most facts have already been confirmed by court rulings in trials or warrant hearings of accomplices or related parties other than Lee.

They will claim that Kim In-seop and Jeong Ba-ul, CEO of Asia Developer, were detained after court review in the Baekhyeon-dong case, and that former Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young, former Ssangbangwool Group Chairman Kim Sung-tae, and APT Peace Exchange Association Chairman Ahn Bu-soo were all detained after court review in the North Korea remittance case.

Considerable Pressure Accompanies Hearing... One Side Likely to Suffer Critical Damage Depending on Outcome

The warrant hearing for Lee will be held from 10 a.m. under the presiding of Judge Yoo Chang-hoon, who is in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court.

For Judge Yoo, who must decide on the detention of the leader of the main opposition party, this hearing inevitably carries considerable pressure. Especially, the fact that most Democratic Party lawmakers and many party members have submitted petitions appealing for dismissal of the warrant, and that if the warrant is issued, he may face fierce attacks from hardline Democratic supporters, will likely act as pressure.

Lee's detention decision is expected to be made as early as late afternoon on the same day or by early morning the next day.

If Lee's detention warrant is dismissed, the prosecution's investigation is expected to face inevitable setbacks. Particularly, if the warrant is dismissed due to 'insufficient substantiation of criminal charges' or 'possibility of disputing the charges,' the overall momentum of the investigation may significantly decline.

Conversely, if the prosecution succeeds in securing Lee's custody, it will not only accelerate the remaining investigation against him but also favorably impact the maintenance of indictments in cases such as the Daejang-dong incident previously prosecuted.

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