On the 22nd, the Supreme Court referred the appeal trial of Lee Jae-myung, former representative of the Democratic Party of Korea, on charges of 'violating the Public Official Election Act' to a full bench. The full bench deals with important cases that require changes to existing precedents or have significant social impact. The court consists of 13 judges, excluding the head of the Court Administration, from a total of 14 judges including the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court's full bench held the first hearing in the case of the former representative on that day. However, cases referred to the full bench take longer to reach a conclusion than general cases. Legal experts suggest that it is unlikely to reach a conclusion before the presidential election on June 3.
On that day, the Supreme Court initially assigned the case of the former representative accused of violating the Public Official Election Act to a two-member panel consisting of Justices Oh Kyung-mi, Kwon Young-jun, Eom Sang-pil, and Park Young-jae, but immediately referred it to the full bench. The presiding judge of the full bench will be Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, with Justice Park Young-jae serving as the lead judge.
Supreme Court cases are discussed in small panels or referred to the full bench. A small panel is composed of four justices and may consist of 1 to 3 panels. Cases in which justices in the small panel cannot reach a consensus are referred to the full bench. Cases with significant social meaning and importance are also referred to the full bench. While the lead judge in a small panel effectively influences the conclusion, the full bench adjudicates by a majority opinion of the justices.
Simultaneously with the referral to the full bench, Justice Noh Tae-auk filed a recusal request. Recusal occurs when a judge determines they cannot fairly handle a case due to personal reasons or their relationship with the parties involved. The Supreme Court explained, "Justice Noh, who is the chair of the National Election Commission, has requested recusal in the case of violating the Public Official Election Act."
As the Supreme Court referred this case to the full bench, speculation has arisen that a result is unlikely to be reached before the presidential election on June 3. According to the Public Official Election Act, election law violation cases are to be adjudicated within six months for the first trial and within three months for the second and third trials, respectively. However, cases referred to the full bench tend to take longer for hearings, given their significance and social impact compared to small panel cases.
Meanwhile, the former representative was acquitted on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act in the appeal trial on the 26th of last month. The previous first trial court had sentenced him to one year in prison with a two-year probation in November last year, which was overturned.
The former representative was indicted in September 2022 on charges of publicly disseminating false information by appearing in a broadcast debate four times before the 2021 election, where he was a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. The remarks that the prosecution viewed as problematic were: ▲ he did not know Kim Moon-ki (former head of the Development Division of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation) while serving as mayor of Seongnam; ▲ he did not play golf with Kim Moon-ki; and ▲ the change in land use for the Korea Food Research Institute in Baekhyeon-dong, Seongnam, was due to pressure from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
Earlier, the first trial court sentenced the former representative to one year in prison with a two-year probation in November last year. It concluded that the former representative's statement that he did not know Kim Moon-ki and that he changed the land use of the Baekhyeon-dong site due to pressure from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport was a deliberate dissemination of false information.
However, the appellate court acquitted the former representative on the 26th of last month. The former representative's statements were not about any actions but were expressions of 'recognition', and therefore fall outside the scope of penalties under the Public Official Election Act.