Court finds insufficient evidence in Lee Jae-myung perjury case

[Anchor]

As we pointed out yesterday (11.25), there was perjury, but no instruction for perjury, and the controversy surrounding the first trial ruling of Representative Lee Jae-myung continued today (11.26).

So, to understand why this conclusion was reached, reporter Kim Beom-joo analyzed the ruling document in more detail.

It has been confirmed that the same words and actions were judged completely differently by the prosecution and the court.

Let’s take a look together.

[Report]

The only key evidence the prosecution presented to prove DP leader Lee Jae-myung's alleged instruction for perjury was a recorded phone conversation.

The prosecution particularly focused on the fact that Lee mentioned the death of former Seongnam Mayor Kim Byeong-ryang, who was involved in the 'prosecutor impersonation case.'

[Leader Lee Jae-myung → Kim Jin-seong phone statement/Dec. 22, 2018: "Time has passed anyway, and the mayor has passed away."]

The prosecution argued that since former Mayor Kim has passed away, it would be difficult to present opposing evidence, which is essentially a request for false testimony.

However, the first trial court believed there was room for a different interpretation based on the subsequent phone conversation.

It could be interpreted as a request to speak freely since former Mayor Kim, who had a hostile relationship with Lee, had passed away.

The prosecution also highlighted another key statement from leader Lee who said "Just say you heard it."

[Leader Lee Jae-myung → Kim Jin-seong phone statement/Dec. 24, 2018: "(The thing is I went outside first (omitted). So just say you heard it."]

The prosecution claimed that Lee was asking Kim, who was unaware of the relevant details, to provide false testimony as if he knew, but the court explained that considering the rest of the phone conversation, it could be seen as a 'normal request for testimony.'

In other words, it could be interpreted as asking Kim to say he knew based on what he heard, which is insufficient to prove Lee's 'intent to instruct perjury.'

The court also determined that Lee sending a 'summary of arguments' to Kim was within the scope of the defendant's right to defend himself to recall memories of an incident from 16 years ago.

When the same expression can be interpreted in multiple ways, the basic principle of criminal law states that it should be interpreted in favor of the defendant, leading to the court's conclusion that the prosecution's evidence of guilt based on the phone conversation was insufficient.

This is KBS News, Kim Beom-joo.