Lawmakers from the People Power Party requested the Supreme Court on the 28th to 'review the ruling' regarding the second trial ruling of the election law violation case of Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party. 'Review the ruling' means that the Supreme Court overturns the original judgment and directly hears the case. It takes less time in legal procedures than sending the case back to the original court.
Kim Ki-hyun, a 'former judge,' held a press conference at the National Assembly that morning and stated, 'We can no longer leave the authority and status of the judiciary, which has fallen to the ground, as it is. Only the Supreme Court, as the final adjudicator, can correct the legal errors in this appeal trial,' and added, 'To restore trust in the judiciary, we must promptly review the ruling.' The appeal ruling in the case of the representative is clear in its legal errors, and given the significant social repercussions of the outcome, it should be tried directly by the Supreme Court.
Kim mentioned four criteria for the Supreme Court's review of the ruling: ▲ When there is sufficient evidence collected during the factual trial process, and further evidence gathering is unnecessary, ▲ When there are clear legal errors, ▲ When the promptness or efficiency of the litigation is required, ▲ When there is significant social controversy.
He emphasized that the election law violation case of Lee meets all these criteria. Kim said, 'This matter has very simple issues, and since factual trials have been conducted over a long period of more than 30 months from the indictment through the first and second trials, no additional evidence gathering is necessary, and it is a matter that only requires correcting the legal errors regarding whether it is a public declaration of false facts.'
He continued, 'In particular, in the case of the election law violation, the principle of '6-3-3 (mandatory trial period)' is explicitly stated in the law, meaning that it needs to be processed swiftly. Given the significant social controversy related to the qualification for presidential election candidacy, it is consistent with the principle for the Supreme Court to review the ruling.'
Kim noted, 'In many Supreme Court precedents, it has been ruled that if false facts are specific enough to mislead voters in their judgments about candidates, it is sufficient,' and emphasized that especially in cases of election law violations, legal principles should be examined from the perspective of voters.
Kim also refuted point by point the appellate court's judgment in Lee's case. He said, 'Who can be convinced by the claim that enlarging a photo constitutes manipulation?' Regarding the photo taken with the late Kim Moon-ki, the head of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, during a business trip to New Zealand in 2015, he argued that the appellate court's assessment that Lee had said 'photo manipulation' meant 'the photo was enlarged' was incorrect.
Na Kyung-won, a 'former judge,' also held a press conference that afternoon and stated, 'This case should necessarily be overturned due to misunderstandings of the legal principles surrounding false facts. If it is returned to the original court in accordance with convention as a remand, the trial period will be further delayed,' and requested the Supreme Court to review the ruling.
He added, 'The election law trial of Representative Lee has already been too delayed. Considering the legislative tyranny of the opposition, impeachment attempts, and political destruction that resulted from this delay, time is of the essence.'
After the conference, Na told reporters, '(A swift ruling through a review of the ruling) is a way for Representative Lee to recover from numerous instances of governance paralysis and political destruction due to the judicial risks surrounding his criminal case, including the election law.'
The proportion of review of the ruling by the Supreme Court is known to be low. According to legal circles, from 2020 to 2022, only 5.5% (150 cases) of a total of 2,698 cases (civil and criminal) were ruled directly by the Supreme Court. It has been reported that there has been no case where a guilty verdict was overturned to not guilty by a review of the ruling so far.
In response to the criticism that 'Seeking a review of the ruling only for this case might set a wrong precedent,' Na stated, 'I’m not asking for special treatment, but rather indicating the path the Supreme Court should take going forward.' He further mentioned, 'There are voices advocating for an increase in the rate of review of the ruling to alleviate the suffering of defendants and to emphasize the need for the Supreme Court to actively interpret the mandatory regulations on trial periods in the election law.'
Earlier, Joo Jin-woo, the party's legal advisor, also stated at the emergency committee meeting the previous day that 'the second ruling was a ridiculous judgment' and 'It does not take much time to correct the legal principles. When there is sufficient evidence, the Supreme Court can also conduct a review of the ruling.'
Article 396, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates, 'When the Supreme Court has overturned the original judgment, it may make a direct judgment on the defendant's case if it finds that it can make a judgment based on the case record and evidence investigated by the original court and the first trial court.'