Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, who was sent to trial on allegations of a so-called "proxy payment of polling expenses" related to opinion polls involving political broker Myung Tae-gyun, flatly denied the charges at the first court hearing. Oh's side argued there was no reason to entrust opinion polling for the Seoul mayoral by-election to Myung's side and that Kim Han-jung's payment of the expense had nothing to do with him.
The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Agreement Division 22 (Presiding Judge Cho Hyeong-woo, Director General) on the 4th held the first court hearing for Oh, former Seoul Deputy Mayor for Political Affairs Kang Chul-won, and businessman Kim Han-jung, who were indicted on charges of violating the Political Funds Act.
According to the indictment by the Kim Keon-hee special counsel, Oh is accused of receiving both published and unpublished opinion poll results from Myung a total of 10 times ahead of the April 7, 2021 Seoul mayoral by-election and having Kim pay approximately 33 million won in polling expenses on his behalf. The special counsel said that around Jan. 21, 2021, Oh called Myung to ask for a Seoul mayoral election poll, then instructed former Deputy Mayor Kang, who was chief of staff at the time, to consult with Myung and proceed with the poll, and around that time asked Kim to support the expense.
Oh's side, in turn, denied all the charges. They said there was neither a fact nor any motive to ask Myung for an opinion poll related to the Seoul mayoral by-election. They also said there was no reason to entrust the polling to Mirae Korea Research Institute, a small firm, given that there were numerous poll results at the time showing Oh's competitiveness in the general election.
Mirae Korea Research Institute is a firm in Changwon, South Gyeongsang, identified as effectively run by Myung. Oh's side has maintained that Myung produced fake polls with inflated samples and that, after this was revealed, the campaign cut ties at the campaign level.
Former Deputy Mayor Kang and Kim also flatly denied the charges. Kang's side said Kang never received any explicit or implicit instruction from Oh to consult with Myung and proceed with a poll. Kim's side also said Kim never received a request from Oh to cover the polling expense or to lend money.
Oh's side also pushed back at the time of the special counsel's indictment, calling it a forced, tailored indictment. They further raised that Myung's poll was a fabricated fake and that Myung was accused of fraud in connection with it. They suggested the possibility of false testimony, saying Myung changed statements while contacting outside political forces after being detained.
After both sides made their statements that day, Criminal Agreement Division 22 proceeded with the witness examination of Kang Hye-gyeong. Kang is a former staffer at Mirae Korea Research Institute and is known as the whistleblower on allegations related to Myung.
Before appearing in court that day, Oh also took issue with the overlap between the trial and the election period. Oh said that although he repeatedly urged a swift investigation after the case became known from September 2024, the process went through the special counsel, causing the election period and the trial period to overlap. He added that it was a suspicious point to simply chalk up to coincidence.
Under the special counsel law, the first-trial verdict must be rendered within six months from the date of indictment. For this case, which was indicted on Dec. 1 last year, the first-trial ruling must come by June 1. The local elections will be held on June 3.
Meanwhile, in connection with Myung, former President Yoon Suk-yeol's wife, Kim Keon-hee, was acquitted in January of charges of violating the Political Funds Act related to meddling in nominations. The court said, "It appears that Myung regularly conducted opinion polls as part of the business activities of Mirae Korea Research Institute, which he operated, and distributed the results to many people, including the defendant couple (Kim and her spouse)." The reason for the acquittal was that it was closer to an indiscriminate distribution rather than lobbying targeted at a particular person.