[2023 National Audit] Seoul High Court and Central District Court Audit, Focused Questions Expected on ‘Lee Jae-myung Trial’

Lee Jae-myung Trial 'Consolidation' Debate Expected Between Ruling and Opposition Parties
Dismissal of Lee's Arrest Warrant and Lee Hwa-young Trial Also Key Issues

The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit of the Seoul High Court and Seoul Central District Court is also expected to become an 'Lee Jae-myung audit.' Currently, a total of four trials involving Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, are underway exclusively at the Seoul Central District Court.

During the audit of the Seoul High Court on the 24th, numerous questions related to Lee's trials are expected to be raised. In particular, the ruling party is likely to emphasize that the denial of the arrest warrant for Lee by Chief Judge Yoo Chang-hoon, who handled the warrant review at the Seoul Central District Court, was a 'political judgment' rather than a 'judicial judgment.' They point out that Yoo found sufficient grounds for Lee's perjury coaching charges and suspected inappropriate involvement by individuals close to Lee in the testimony changes of Lee Hwa-young, former Gyeonggi Province Peace Deputy Governor, who is on trial for the North Korea remittance case, yet dismissed the warrant due to Lee's status as the current party leader.

Chief Judge Yoo stated when dismissing Lee's arrest warrant, "Considering the suspect's circumstances and the fact that the suspect is the current leader of a political party, subject to public scrutiny and criticism, it is difficult to conclude that there is a risk of evidence tampering."

The ruling party is also expected to focus questions on Judge Park Byung-gon of the Seoul Central District Court, who sentenced Rep. Jeong Jin-seok of the People Power Party to imprisonment, amid controversies over Park's frequent political opinions expressed on his social media accounts.

In August this year, Judge Park sentenced Rep. Jeong Jin-seok, who was indicted for defaming the late former President Roh Moo-hyun, to six months in prison. Subsequently, it was revealed that Park had posted content criticizing the current ruling party and supporting the opposition during his high school, university years, and even after his appointment as a judge, sparking controversy.

At a previous Supreme Court audit, when a ruling party lawmaker asked, "Has there been any review regarding judges' use of social media that could undermine their political neutrality?" Supreme Court Ethics Inspector Lee Jun responded, "Most fact-finding has been completed, but since this is an important matter, various measures are under consideration."

Meanwhile, the ruling party is expected to argue against consolidating the trials involving Lee at the Central District Court. Currently, Lee is facing four trials: violations of the Public Official Election Act, allegations related to Daejang, Wirye, and Seongnam FC, the Baekhyeon-dong development allegations, and perjury coaching allegations. The Central District Court has announced it will hold a separate hearing to decide whether to consolidate the cases excluding the Public Official Election Act violation.

On the other hand, the opposition party is likely to argue for consolidating the Daejang-dong, Baekhyeon-dong, and perjury coaching cases. Lee's legal team requested the court the day before to consolidate the Baekhyeon-dong and perjury coaching cases with the Daejang-dong trial. Consolidation of multiple cases could reduce Lee's court appearances and potentially be advantageous in sentencing.

Additionally, the opposition may raise issues regarding the trial of former Gyeonggi Province Peace Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young, which is ongoing at the Suwon District Court. Lee's defense attorney submitted a motion to disqualify the judges, alleging that despite prosecutors and former Ssangbangwool Group Chairman Kim Seong-tae coordinating their testimonies in the North Korea remittance suspicion case under trial, the court failed to fulfill its duty to prevent false testimony inducement.

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