Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal for Doctor and Others Accused of Spreading False Allegations Regarding Late Mayor Park Won-soon's Son

The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of Dr. Yang Seung-o and others who were indicted on charges of raising false allegations regarding the military service of Park Ju-shin, the son of the late former Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Justice Ma Yong-ju presiding) confirmed the lower court's ruling today (June 25), which had acquitted Dr. Yang of violating the Public Official Election Act.

Five other defendants were also found not guilty of charges including the dissemination of false information and defamation of a candidate under the Public Official Election Act.

Only one defendant was found guilty of distributing documents through methods not permitted under the election law, resulting in a fine of 700,000 won.

The Supreme Court maintained the lower court's judgment that there was sufficient room for the defendants to harbor suspicions, making it difficult to establish that they had knowingly spread false information.

Dr. Yang and the others were indicted without detention on charges of attempting to undermine the late Mayor Park's campaign in the June 2014 local elections by spreading false claims that his son had evaded military service.

Park Ju-shin entered an Air Force training center in August 2011 but was discharged the following month due to thigh pain. During a subsequent re-examination, he was assigned to alternative military service due to a herniated disc.

Following allegations of military service evasion that began in January 2012, Park underwent a public medical examination at Severance Hospital in February 2012, which included an MRI scan.

Dr. Yang, who was the head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine at the Dongnam Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences at the time, and others claimed that the MRI had been swapped even after the public examination. They filed a complaint against Park for violating the Military Service Act, but prosecutors cleared Park of all charges.

In February 2016, the first trial court found the defendants guilty of violating the Public Official Election Act and sentenced them to fines ranging from 7 million to 15 million won.

The first trial court determined that the allegations were false, stating, "It is clear that no proxy was involved in the medical imaging, and that the public verification at Severance Hospital was indeed conducted by Park himself."

The court also rejected the defendants' claims that physical characteristics, such as the shape of the teeth and ears of the person in the imaging data, differed from those of Park.

However, in February of this year, 10 years after the first ruling, the second trial court overturned the decision and acquitted the defendants, stating, "It is highly likely that Dr. Yang and the others believed their suspicions were true, and the situation appeared to be one where those suspicions had not been fully resolved."

The second trial court specifically pointed out that those who raised the allegations, including Dr. Yang, did not participate in the public medical examination. The court noted, "The public examination was conducted to completely deny the allegations of military service evasion, but since the MRI disclosure was carried out without the presence of those who raised the suspicions, it is difficult to verify that the subject was indeed Park Ju-shin."

The court further judged, "Until the involvement of a proxy was confirmed through investigation and trial, it appears possible that the defendants could claim that the existing suspicions had not been resolved."

The court added, "Considering these facts, we cannot apply charges of spreading false information or defaming a candidate based on the fact that the defendants did not verify whether the subject was Park Ju-shin or that they did not exert further efforts to find more data regarding the subject in the video."

Although the prosecution appealed the decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating, "There was no misunderstanding of legal principles in the lower court's judgment."

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.