The 'More YeoMin Forum,' a meeting of pro-Lee Jae-myung lawmakers, held a discussion on the 28th regarding Lee Jae-myung's appeal in the public office election law case, asserting his innocence. The ruling on Lee's appeal is set for the 26th of next month.
On that day, the More YeoMin Forum hosted a discussion titled 'Issues and Tasks Concerning the Crime of Falsely Announcing Facts in the Public Office Election Law' at the National Assembly's member conference hall. A large number of pro-Lee lawmakers, including Jeon Hyun-hee, Moon Geum-joo, Moon Dae-rim, Chae Hyun-il, and Park Kyun-taek from the Democratic Party, attended the event.
Jeon Hyun-hee, a senior member of the Democratic Party and vice chair of the More YeoMin Forum, said in her opening remarks, "Personally, I do not think there is anything to worry about regarding the election law trial and am confident of his innocence," adding, "It was essentially an unfair indictment by the political prosecution aimed at eliminating a political rival of the Yoon Seok-yeol administration."
She continued, "Despite the Supreme Court precedent stating that 'broad interpretations cannot be made,' we witnessed a ruling based on the first-instance court's interpretation of (Lee's) statement 'I do not know Kim Moon-ki' as 'I did not play golf.' Fortunately, the second-instance court has requested changes to the indictment regarding that part, so I think positively about it."
There were also pressure comments directed at the second-instance trial panel. Professor Han Sang-hoon of Yonsei University, who presided over the discussion, stated, "The part related to acts in Article 250, Paragraph 1 of the Public Office Election Law is too broad and ambiguous, raising many questions," and hoped that the court would listen to scholars' opinions.
On that day, the presentation was made by Professor Lee Jin-guk of Ajou University School of Law, who frequently appears at the More YeoMin Forum discussions. He had previously served as a presenter at a discussion on the perjury case held by the More YeoMin Forum in October last year and a discussion on the declaration of a state of emergency held in December.
Professor Lee also raised issues regarding the act elements. This concerns the part where Lee's side requested a constitutional review during the trial. He argued, "The 'act' in the Public Office Election Law has an excessively broad meaning to the point where it cannot be clearly defined," adding that it limits the constitutional freedom of expression and raises issues regarding the principle of excessive prohibition and the principle of clarity.
He noted, "The golf statement and the Baekhyeon-dong statement parts that were acknowledged as guilty by the first-instance court seem to have applied legal principles insufficiently or misapplied them," adding that "even if the facts of the indictment against Lee are found guilty, the sentence is excessively harsh."
Ahn Tae-jun, a Democratic Party lawmaker who moderated the event, remarked, "There was a moment during the final pleadings of (Lee's) appeal that tugged at my heartstrings," and added, "I was indicted based on manipulated photos and was judged for statements I did not make. I am confident of his innocence thanks to this discussion."
Some political figures criticized the discussion as 'Lee Jae-myung's bulletproofing.' An individual in the political sphere noted, "This is not the first time that a discussion aimed at defending the representative has sparked controversy as a 'bulletproof discussion.' A discussion was also held last year ahead of the verdict in the perjury case," adding, "The content of the discussion can be seen as a defense against the representative's judicial risks and could pressure the court."