Table of Contents
- Impact of the Supreme Court Ruling on Lee Jae-myung on the Presidential Election
- Supreme Court's Ruling: Recognition of false statements
- Outlook on the retrial: The barrier of '1 million won fine'
- Debate on Presidential Non-Prosecution Privilege: Does the trial continue?
- Presidential Election amid Uncertainty: A Test of Law and Politics
Impact of the Supreme Court Ruling on Lee Jae-myung on the Presidential Election
Recently, the Supreme Court of South Korea made an important ruling regarding the case of Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act. It overturned the acquittal from the appeals court and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court with the intention of finding guilt.
This ruling is expected to significantly impact Lee's political standing and the electoral landscape ahead of the upcoming presidential election.
In this post, I will analyze the key points of the Supreme Court's overturn ruling and its legal basis, prospect of the upcoming retrial, and connections to the debate around presidential non-prosecution privilege, among other important issues.
Supreme Court's Ruling: Recognition of false statements
The Supreme Court's full bench has ruled that certain statements made by candidate Lee Jae-myung were violations of the Public Official Election Act. The main contentious statements are divided into two parts.
The first part pertains to the late Kim Moon-ki, the former head of the Development Division at the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation. During his time as the mayor of Seongnam, he claimed that he did not know Kim and had never played golf with him. However, the Supreme Court determined, based on relevant evidence, that there was indeed a fact that they played golf together, and described his denial as a false public statement.
Secondly, claims were made that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport 'pressured' or 'threatened' him regarding the Baekhyeon-dong development project. The Supreme Court acknowledged that there were requests for cooperation from the Ministry, but stated that describing this as 'threatening' was clearly untrue. They found that such false claims could instill a mistaken belief among voters that "there was no other choice but to change the land use." The Supreme Court emphasized that these misleading statements are critical issues that can significantly affect voters' correct judgment.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the evidence assessment during the appeals trial exceeded the scope of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and misinterpreted the legal principles regarding false public statements. They emphasized that while freedom of expression is an important value, the publication of false facts that undermines the fairness of elections is not protected. This ruling can be interpreted as focusing on securing the voters' right to make the correct choice while considering the balance between political freedom of expression and the fairness of elections.
Outlook on the retrial: The barrier of '1 million won fine'
As the Supreme Court has made a ruling to send the case back with the intention of finding guilt, the case will be retried at the Seoul High Court. The High Court must follow the legal judgments of the Supreme Court, so determining the sentencing based on the premise of guilt will be a major issue in this retrial.
Lee's political future will heavily depend on the sentencing decisions in this retrial. According to the Public Official Election Act, if a fine of over 1 million won is confirmed due to election-related crimes, the right to stand for election will be deprived for five years from that point. Additionally, in the case of imprisonment (including suspended sentences), the disqualification period extends to 10 years. Consequently, it appears that Lee's side will do their utmost to receive a sentence of less than 1 million won.
Ultimately, it is clear that the upcoming rulings will have a significant impact on Lee's political standing.
In the process of determining the sentence, various factors are considered. These include whether the statements were made through highly disseminated media such as broadcasting, the severity of the false statement and its impact on the election, the existence of similar past records, the premeditation of the crime, and the degree of reflection. Lee has expressed his opinions through media interviews, and he has a history of punishment for similar crimes, which may place him in a disadvantageous situation. However, considering the unique nature of political conflict, there could be variables involved.
In the first trial, a suspended prison sentence was handed down, so some observers believe that it will not be easy to receive a punishment of less than 1 million won in the future.
Furthermore, considering the verdict of the retrial and the possibility of an appeal process, it is highly likely that the final confirmation of the sentence will be delayed until after the presidential election date. This means that Lee could legally maintain his eligibility to run for office and participate in the election, but the 'judicial risk' will continue to haunt him during the election period.
Debate on Presidential Non-Prosecution Privilege: Does the trial continue?
If candidate Lee is elected president and subsequently receives a guilty verdict, an unprecedented constitutional issue could arise. This relates to the controversy over the presidential non-prosecution privilege as stipulated in Article 84 of the Constitution. This provision states that "the president shall not be criminally prosecuted during his term, except in cases of insurrection or treason."
The most significant issue at hand is the interpretation of the term 'prosecution.' One side argues that 'prosecution' refers only to the initiation of charges by the prosecution, meaning that trials for cases charged before taking office should proceed. In contrast, the other side argues that even after an indictment, all trials should be suspended during the term of office.
The former position emphasizes the general meaning of 'prosecution' and the principle of equality before the law, while the latter argues that the Constitution's purpose is to ensure that the president can perform his duties stably. Such conflicting interpretations complicate the constitutional debate, and various scenarios are likely to unfold depending on future political circumstances.
Currently, there is no clear precedent established by the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court regarding this matter. The academic community also lacks a generally accepted theory, and interpretations often differ based on political views. If candidate Lee is elected, the likelihood of this controversy over interpretation becoming a reality increases significantly. Thus, it is expected that the final resolution will be drawn through either the conclusion of the concerned court or the constitutional court's dispute resolution judgment.
This will set important criteria regarding the powers and responsibilities of the president that go beyond legal interpretation, potentially leading to serious legal and political turmoil depending on the outcome. Ultimately, this issue is likely to evolve into a significant matter related to the governance of the state rather than a simple legal issue.
Presidential Election amid Uncertainty: A Test of Law and Politics
The Supreme Court's ruling on Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act has introduced the important factor of 'judicial risk' into the presidential election landscape. While it is highly likely that a guilty verdict will be handed down at the High Court, whether the fine exceeds 1 million won will be a critical factor in determining his political future.
The likelihood of a final ruling occurring before the election is low, suggesting that his legal eligibility to stand will continue. However, if he is elected, controversies regarding the application of the presidential non-prosecution privilege under Article 84 of the Constitution will arise, presenting an unprecedented challenge in South Korea's constitutional history.
This ruling highlights the conflict between the rule of law and the stability of presidential governance, further intensifying debates about the role and political neutrality of the judiciary. During the remaining election period, this issue is likely to overshadow policy competition, forcing voters to make tough decisions amid legal uncertainties. The outcome of the retrial and the direction of constitutional discussions are expected to significantly influence the future political landscape and rule of law system in Korea.
#LeeJaeMyung, #SupremeCourt, #Overturn, #PublicOfficialElectionAct, #FalseStatements, #KimMoonki, #BaekhyeonDong, #PresidentialElection, #PoliticalRisk, #EligibilityToStandForElection, #1MillionWonFine, #CandidateEligibility, #ConstitutionalArticle84, #President, #NonProsecutionPrivilege, #TrialSuspension, #Prosecution, #Indictment, #RuleOfLaw, #Politics, #DemocraticParty, #HighCourt, #Sentencing, #ConstitutionalCourt, #ElectionLawViolation, #PoliticalTrial, #LegalInterpretation, #ConstitutionalOrder, #PresidentialCandidate
