The Supreme Court's full bench ruling on Lee Jae-myung, Democratic Party of Korea's presidential candidate, regarding the Public Official Election Act violation case will be delivered at 3 p.m. on May 1. If a fine of over 1 million won is confirmed, this candidate will be unable to run in the June 3 presidential election. There is speculation that the political fate of this candidate depends on the selection of the 12 justices, including the Chief Justice, participating in this full bench.
◇ The Supreme Court's full bench composed of 12 members has a composition of 'center-right 10 vs. left 2'
Originally, the Supreme Court's full bench is composed of 13 members, including the Chief Justice and 12 justices. However, in the case of Lee Jae-myung's election law violation, Justice Noh Tae-ak, who is also the chair of the National Elections Commission, recused himself, thus the full bench was conducted with a total of 12 members.
The political affiliations of the 12 justices participating in this full bench are analyzed as 'center-right 10 to left 2'. This includes Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, appointed by former President Yoon Suk-yeol, along with Justices Oh Seok-jun, Seo Kyung-hwan, Kwon Young-jun, Eom Sang-pil, Shin Suk-hee, Noh Kyung-pil, Park Young-jae, Lee Sook-yeon, and Ma Yong-joo classified as center-right. In contrast, Justices Lee Heung-koo and Oh Kyung-mi, appointed by former President Moon Jae-in, are evaluated as left-leaning.
In response, a legal expert noted, 'The political inclinations of the justices do not necessarily align with the conclusions of individual cases.' Earlier, the Constitutional Court was also assessed as 'center-right 5 to left 3', but in the impeachment case of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, all eight justices unanimously decided on impeachment.
◇ Likely to conclude with one of the three cards… 'Confirmation of acquittal', 'Reversal decision', 'Reversal and remand'
Candidate Lee Jae-myung received a sentence of one year in prison suspended for two years in the first trial for the election law violation case, but this was overturned to not guilty in the second trial. The prosecution then appealed, leading the Supreme Court's full bench to conduct a third trial. In this case, the candidate is accused of making false statements, claiming he did not know Kim Moon-ki, the former head of Seongnam Development Corporation, and that the development of Baekhyeon-dong apartments proceeded under pressure from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport during the last presidential election.
Legal experts analyze that the Supreme Court's full bench can reach a conclusion with one of the three options. The full bench will make a decision based on the opinion of the majority (more than 7 justices) participating in the trial.
If 'acquittal is confirmed by rejecting the appeal' occurs, it would result in the most favorable outcome for this candidate. If a fine of over 1 million won is confirmed for the election law violation, the candidate will be able to run in the June 3 presidential election without any restrictions on his eligibility.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court finds that the second trial's not guilty ruling was incorrect and concludes there is a guilty aspect related to this candidate, it will decide on a reversal.
If the Supreme Court makes a 'reversal decision' that directly sets the sentence, it will be confirmed as prescribed. Depending on whether the fine exceeds 1 million won, the candidate's entry into the June 3 presidential election could be affected. Moreover, being found guilty, regardless of the sentence, could negatively impact this candidate during the election process.
In contrast, the Supreme Court might choose not to directly determine the sentence but only reverse the ruling based on the guilty finding and send the case back to the Seoul High Court for retrial, which could also negatively impact this candidate due to the guilty finding.
However, in the case of a reversal and remand, a conclusive judgment might be hard to achieve before the June 3 presidential election. If this happens, there would be no legal issues regarding the candidate's participation.
Meanwhile, this candidate argues based on Article 84 of the Constitution that if he is elected president, all ongoing trials should cease. Article 84 states, 'The President shall not be liable to criminal prosecution during their term, except in cases of insurrection or treason.' There are interpretations that state 'trials already in progress before presidential election should also be halted' and 'that is not the case.'
◇ In 2020, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the not guilty ruling regarding Lee election law violation
In the past, this candidate received a ruling from the Supreme Court's full bench in a case of publishing false information related to the allegations of 'forcible hospitalization of his older brother' during the 2018 Gyeonggi Province governor election.
The first trial of this case acquitted the candidate, but the second trial imposed a disqualification penalty (fine of 3 million won). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case with a not guilty finding by a vote of 7 to 5 in July 2020. Subsequently, this candidate obtained a not guilty ruling from the Suwon High Court regarding this case.
A legal expert stated, 'By receiving a not guilty finding from the Supreme Court at that time, this candidate maintained his position as Governor of Gyeonggi Province and laid the groundwork for his candidacy in the last presidential election.' However, there have been allegations of 'transaction' regarding the Supreme Court's July 2020 ruling.
Meanwhile, regardless of how this public official election law case of the representative concludes, the 'judicial risk' controversy may continue.
This candidate is also facing four other trials besides this case: ▲perjury case ▲Daejang-dong, Wirye, Baekhyeon-dong development preferential treatment and Seongnam FC case ▲illegal remittances to North Korea by SSANGBANGWOOL ▲corporate credit card misuse case. Among them, the perjury case was acquitted in the first trial and is currently undergoing an appeals process. The trials for the remaining cases are lagging behind.