Lee Jae-myung, the representative of the Democratic Party of Korea, faces charges related to the 'SSANGBANGWOOL North Korea remittance' case, and the first trial will resume on April 23rd. It has been 132 days since the trial was paused due to Lee's request for 'recusal of the judge.' He was indicted in June last year, but only preparatory procedures have taken place for nine months without the formal trial to determine guilt or innocence even starting.
The 11th Criminal Division of the Suwon District Court (presided by Judge Song Byeong-hoon) announced on the 31st, 'We designate the 5th preparatory hearing for Lee for April 23rd.'
Lee was indicted without detention on June 12th last year. He is accused of conspiring with former Gyeonggi Province Peace Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young during his term as Gyeonggi Province governor to pay a total of $8 million, including $5 million for the 'North Korea smart farm support' project promised by Gyeonggi Province to be paid to Kim Seong-tae, former chairman of SSANGBANGWOOL, and $3 million for the governor's 'expenses for visiting North Korea.' Accordingly, the charge of 'third-party bribery' has been applied, as it is alleged that he sought political benefits from the successful visit to North Korea by having the bribe given to North Korea without receiving it directly.
However, concerns have been raised about the delay in the trial. From June to December 17th last year, four preparatory hearings were held over a span of six months. During these hearings, only issues and evidence were organized without determining guilt or innocence. Lee did not appear in court as there is no obligation for the defendant to attend.
Moreover, the trial was halted when Lee filed a recusal request. He argued that a nine-and-a-half-year prison sentence was imposed on the former vice governor, raising concerns that the trial would be unfair to him. In response, the court dismissed the request on the 11th of last month, stating that the circumstances claimed by Lee no longer existed due to a change in judges as part of regular court appointments.
However, the trial continued to be delayed as the dismissal ruling could not be delivered to Lee. The court reportedly sent the ruling six times but failed to deliver it due to 'absence of the addressee.’ Subsequently, Lee's side submitted a delivery address notification on the 26th, and the dismissal ruling sent by the court the same day was delivered on the 28th.
A legal expert commented, 'This case is a serious example of trial delay,' stating, 'Both Lee's side, which avoided delivery, and the court, which did not take proactive measures for a speedy trial, should be seen as being at fault.'