Supreme Court, Lee Jae-myung's 'Violation of the Public Official Election Act' Resulting in 'Reversal and Remand'

Lee Jae-myung, the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, who was indicted for 'violation of the Public Official Election Act', received a final 'reversal and remand' ruling from the Supreme Court. This follows a not guilty ruling that he received in the second trial on March 26, marking 36 days since that verdict.

As a result, the candidate became eligible to run in the early presidential election on June 3; however, there are likely to be numerous controversies regarding his candidacy throughout the remaining election race.

On the afternoon of the 1st, the Supreme Court's en banc session, comprising 12 members including Chief Justice Cho Hee-da, overturned the second trial's verdict and remanded the case to the high court regarding the charges of false fact disclosure under the Election Act against the candidate.

The candidate is accused of stating that he "does not know" the late Kim Moon-ki, the former head of the Development Department at Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, during a broadcast while being a presidential candidate in 2021, as well as his remarks during the same year's National Assembly inspection claiming that the change in land use in Baekhyeon-dong, Seongnam, was due to "coercion from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport."

Previously, the first trial court deemed the statement regarding Kim Moon-ki—claiming "I never played golf with him"—as a falsehood and found Lee guilty, stating that the change in land use was "a decision made voluntarily by the candidate."

In contrast, the second trial court concluded that the statement about not knowing Kim was meant to support that claim and ruled that the candidate's remarks merely expressed an opinion, resulting in a 'not guilty' verdict.

Regarding the comments related to coercion from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport regarding the change in Baekhyeon-dong's land use, the second trial court viewed these as 'the candidate's political expression' and stated that even if the truth varies slightly or is somewhat exaggerated, it cannot be considered false information.

Image source: News1, Chief Justice Cho Hee-da / News1