Court Rejects Yoon's Acquittal Plea Citing Lee Jae-myung Precedent, Upholds Invalidation Penalty in 2nd Trial

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol, indicted on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, argued for his acquittal by citing a Supreme Court ruling regarding President Lee Jae-myung, but both the first and second instance courts rejected the argument.

During the appellate sentencing hearing for former President Yoon's Public Official Election Act violation case held at the Seoul High Court today (Nov. 4), two Supreme Court rulings concerning President Lee's Public Official Election Act violation cases were brought up.

Yoon's legal team argued that the legal principles from the 2020 Supreme Court ruling on President Lee Jae-myung's remarks regarding the "forced hospitalization of his older brother" should be applied.

The 2020 Supreme Court ruling involved a case where Lee was indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act after stating during a 2018 local election TV debate that he had not tried to forcibly admit his older brother to a mental hospital, with the Supreme Court eventually issuing a ruling with a view toward acquittal.

At the time, the Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a candidate in a debate through questions, answers, arguments, or counterarguments cannot be punished under the crime of publishing false information unless there are special circumstances—such as an active intent to unilaterally reveal and publicize false facts regardless of the debate's topic or context.

However, the appellate court on this day stated that the 2020 Supreme Court ruling premised special circumstances, such as cases where expressions made by a candidate during a debate become problematic, and judged that the situation in which former President Yoon made the problematic remarks did not fall under this category.

The court explained regarding the 2020 Supreme Court ruling, "In the case of candidate debates, questions and answers, and debates through claims and counterclaims between candidates are conducted impromptu and continuously within a limited time, which takes into account that there are inevitable limits to the clarity of those expressions."

On the other hand, regarding the Kwanhun Club-invited debate where former President Yoon stated that he did not introduce a lawyer to former Yongsan Tax Office Chief Yoon Woo-jin, the court stated, "Although the name is a debate, only the defendant was invited as a candidate and it followed a format of answering questions from a panel composed of journalists."

The court judged the same for the press interview immediately following the Buddhism Leaders Forum, where he stated that he had never met Jeon Seong-bae, known as the shaman Geonjinbeopsa, alongside his spouse.

The court stated, "The defendant spoke in response to journalists' questions without special time or format restrictions at the Kwanhun Club-invited debate, and the interview immediately after the Buddhism Leaders Forum was also an explanation of journalists' questions regarding the suspicions related to Jeon Seong-bae reported in the media," adding, "The remarks made by the defendant that became problematic were made in Q&As or interviews of a completely different nature from a candidate debate."

Today, the court dismissed former President Yoon's appeal and upheld the first instance ruling of 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 3-year suspension of execution.

As former President Yoon's legal team immediately expressed their stance to appeal following the sentencing, the final judgment is expected to be made by the Supreme Court.

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