A full-scale trial began on January 10, 2022, regarding allegations of preferential treatment and lobbying for the Daejang-dong development project in Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do. The Dong-A Ilbo legal team serializes the trials that take place every week on Saturdays in order to keep a record of this case, which attracted a lot of public attention. In addition, we plan to continue reporting on remaining unresolved suspicions. This episode is Episode 61 of Catch Up on the Daejangdong Trial.
Even if that person looks at me, I don’t know that person.
Even if you know me, I don’t remember
Over the past few days, this song has been on many lips in Seocho-dong.
This is Lee Moon-se’s song ‘When Love Passes’, which was loved by many people.
The song ‘When Love Passes’ appeared at none other than the trial of Lee Jae-myeong, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea. On the 20th of this month, the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Agreement Division 34 (Chief Judge Han Seong-jin) held a trial for Representative Lee’s first trial on the Public Official Election Act. On this day, the prosecution requested that CEO Lee be sentenced to two years in prison. While expressing my final opinion before the motion, I displayed some of the lyrics of this song on the PPT screen. He then said, “The lyrics of this song seem similar to CEO Lee’s position.”
●Did Lee Jae-myeong not know Kim Moon-ki?
To understand the prosecution’s metaphor, you must first know the contents of the Public Official Election Act trial. The reason why this content is covered in the ‘Catch up with the Daejang-dong trial’ corner is because Representative Lee’s Public Official Election Act trial is also rooted in the Daejang-dong project.
Representative Lee was indicted on charges of publishing false information during the last presidential election. There are two main types of remarks for which this charge is applied. He appeared on the air and said that he “didn’t know” the late Kim Moon-ki, former head of the Development Business Division 1 of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, and when asked about increasing the use of the Baekhyeon-dong development site during the 2021 Gyeonggi-do government audit, he said, “It was because of threats from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.” Today, out of the two statements, I will focus on the “I didn’t know” statement, which is directly related to the Daejeon-dong project.
In 2021, when he was a presidential candidate, Representative Lee appeared on a broadcast and was asked by an anchor whether he knew former Minister Kim, who was in charge of the ‘Daejang-dong project’, and said, “I was a low-level employee, so I didn’t know when I was mayor.”
The prosecution’s view on this is simple. First, Representative Lee has known former Director Kim for a long time. Second, despite this, Representative Lee said, “I didn’t know,” and intended to distance himself from the Daejangdong suspicions and give him an advantage in the election. As evidence supporting the relationship between CEO Lee and former Director Kim, the prosecution cited the fact that former Director Kim sent CEO Lee a Chuseok gift in 2009 and accompanied him on a business trip between Australia and New Zealand in 2015.
Representative Lee denied the charges throughout the trial, which lasted about two years. Although he may have met former Director Kim as shown in the photo presented by the prosecution, he does not know him well as he is one of many employees, and because the broadcast was an impromptu question and answer session at the time, he was unable to explain the details of the suspicion and expressed “I did not know.” no see.
The arguments of both sides were fiercely contested until the final hearing.
‘Did Lee Jae-myeong really not know Kim Moon-ki?’
‘Was the statement of ignorance intended to influence the election?’
On this day, the arguments of both sides regarding these two questions developed very interestingly. Right before sentencing, I heard various analogies to persuade the court a little more. Let me introduce you to a scene from the trial.
From IU to Lee Moon-se
“Do you know IU?”
This sentence came out of the mouth of the prosecutor who was giving his final opinion for a long time that day. The prosecution was referring to the written opinion submitted by Representative Lee.
“If you look at the opinion submitted by Representative Lee, he mentioned singer IU and said that the answer ‘No, I don’t know’ to the question ‘Do you know IU?’ is only about the current state of awareness. However, this is an interpretation that does not take into account the context.”
Let me explain this. Representative Lee’s side claims that the fact that he said “I didn’t know” during the 2021 interview broadcast was literally CEO Lee’s judgment at the moment he spoke, but the prosecution countered that in the context of the interview, there was a different intention hidden in the statement “I didn’t know.” . Meanwhile, the prosecution assumes the following hypothetical situation.
#A reporter asks singer A a question.
“While working on an album with Mr. B, an employee of the same agency, we met and talked on the phone and did our favorite leisure activities together. There are reports of a romantic relationship. Do you know the person named B?”
At this time, singer A responded like this:all.
“Mr. B is a low-level employee and is not in a position to talk to or hang out with me. “The gift was also sent to hundreds of people, so how do I know Mr. B?”
It is clear why the prosecution set up this situation. Here, singer A refers to CEO Lee, agency employee B refers to former director Kim, and reporter refers to the broadcasting company anchor.
The prosecution says, “It is clear that singer A’s answer at this time does not simply mean that he does not know Mr. B, but rather denies any romantic relationship or association with that person.” In other words, Representative Lee’s remarks at the time were close to ‘denying the relationship with former Director Kim.’
Lee Moon-se’s song ‘When Love Passes’ also appeared in this context. The prosecution presented an interpretation of the song, saying, “(The speaker of this song) is in the same position as CEO Lee.”
‘A song that expresses the speaker’s current feelings about a past experience with a specific person that deeply hurt the speaker, so he decided to keep it unknown.’
At the same time, he explains, “For Representative Lee, his association with former Director Kim was a deep wound, that is, it was a disadvantageous fact, so he had an association with former Director Kim and knew all about it, but he said ‘I don’t know’ on the broadcast.”
●Lee “Indictment like the Palace of Interest Act”
In response to the prosecution’s claim, Representative Lee’s lawyer sarcastically said, “It is an indictment similar to the court’s interest law.”
“Indicting Kim Moon-ki as a lie when he said, ‘I don’t remember,’ means, ‘I’m reading your mind. “You’re lying,’” he said, adding, “No matter how advanced modern science is, this is an indictment of the realm of God that cannot even be considered.”
Representative Lee’s argument can be summarized as follows. First of all, the expression ‘I don’t know’ cannot be subject to punishment under the Public Official Election Act. Shall we look again at the charges against Representative Lee? Under the Public Official Election Act, this is a crime of ‘publication of false facts.’ At this time, the argument is that the expression ‘I don’t know’ is based on an individual’s memory and cannot be considered the realm of ‘fact’, so there is no need to even consider whether it is false or not.
Additionally, citing existing Supreme Court precedents, it is argued that debates do not fall within the realm of ‘publication’. Representative Lee’s lawyer said, “A live conversation program is a place where embarrassing questions are asked, so if the answers are strictly applied, the contestant will only make evasive statements. If that happens, will the purpose of the broadcast, such as promoting discussion, be achieved?” I asked back.
Representative Lee also made high-level criticism of the prosecution. Representative Lee has said that the prosecution falsified evidence by claiming, “The photo taken with former Director Kim that the prosecution presented as evidence was fabricated.”
Representative Lee, who stood up for the final statement on this day, said, “The prosecutor is a political opponent of the president he serves, so he abuses his power, hides and manipulates evidence, creates a case that does not exist, sends him to prison, and ultimately kills him politically.” Are you not a citizen of ? “Am I an enemy of this country?” he appealed.
●Political standing changes following the November sentencing
The reason why both sides fought until the very end was because there was a high risk of losing depending on the outcome of the sentencing. For politicians, the Public Official Election Act trial is very sensitive. If you are sentenced to a fine of more than 1 million won in the Public Official Election Act trial and the Supreme Court confirms it, you will lose your seat as a member of the National Assembly and will not be able to run for public office for five years. This will be even more important for Representative Lee, who is seeking the next presidential election in 2027.
Conversely, if the case is found not guilty, the level of criticism directed at the prosecution is expected to intensify. This trial is expected to be the first to receive a court decision among the cases in which prosecutors have indicted Representative Lee since the last presidential election (perjury teacher, Daejang-dong, Ssangbang-ul, etc.). If the first court decision results in a not guilty verdict, Representative Lee’s claims that it is an ‘abuse of the prosecution’s power to prosecute’ and ‘a political retaliation investigation’ will be strengthened.
First of all, on this day, the prosecution requested that CEO Lee be sentenced to two years in prison. This is the highest sentence under the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines. The prosecution cited various reasons, saying, “We seek sentencing based on the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the crime, criminal records of the same kind, etc., without considering things that are outside the jurisdiction of the defendant, such as the status of the defendant.” This includes the presidential election at the time, when the voter influence was so great that the difference in votes from the other party was 0.7 percentage points, and the fact that he actively and repeatedly lied in a situation where the spread of his remarks was very high.
Now all that remains is sentencing. Attention is being paid to what decision the court will make at the sentencing date held at 2:30 pm on November 15th.
2024-09-28 10:33:28