Summary of Evidence Disputes Between Prosecution and Defense in Lee Jae-myung's Second Trial (Comprehensive)

Prosecution: "Kim Moon-gi Cannot Forget" ... Important Content for Election
Defense: "Statement About State of Awareness, Not Action"
Yoo Dong-gyu to Appear as Witness at Third Trial on 31st

A photo taken in January 2015 during an overseas business trip to New Zealand, showing Lee Jae-myung, then mayor of Seongnam and current leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, together with Yoo Dong-gyu, former Planning Director of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, and the late Kim Moon-gi, Development Section Chief 1 of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation (left), and a photo of Lee and Kim holding hands.
[Photo by People Power Party]

At the second trial concerning Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, the prosecution and defense engaged in intense disputes over the evidence presented by the prosecution.

The prosecution sequentially presented various pieces of evidence to prove that Lee knew the late Kim Moon-gi, head of Development Division 1 at Seongnam Urban Development Corporation during Lee's tenure as mayor of Seongnam, arguing that it was impossible for Lee not to have known Kim. On the other hand, the defense countered that some of the evidence submitted by the prosecution was not directly related to the case and emphasized that Lee did not remember Kim at the time.

According to the legal community on the 18th, the second evidence investigation on the evidence agreed upon by Lee's side was conducted at the second trial on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, held at 10:30 a.m. the previous day under the Criminal Division 34 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Kang Gyu-tae).

The prosecution prepared PowerPoint (PPT) materials to refute point by point the claims made by the defense during the first trial.

Defense protests over prosecutor’s statement on indictment facts at trial start

First, a prosecutor who said he would briefly state opinions on the opinion letter submitted by the defense and Lee's testimony stated, "This statement (that Lee did not know Kim Moon-gi during his time as mayor of Seongnam) is either an answer to a broadcaster's question or an explanation of allegations previously reported in the media, so it should be understood from the perspective of a general voter in connection with the allegations."

He continued, "The broadcasters asked about specific experiences, such as accompanying Lee closely during a business trip to Australia and awarding a commendation related to the Daejang-dong project. Lee's responses were false explanations, so the questions and answers were based on empirical acts," adding, "Regarding the suspicion that Lee and Kim Moon-gi played golf together, Lee responded, 'The People Power Party made it seem like I played golf with him, but that was fabricated.' This means that during the Australia trip, Lee did not play golf with Kim Moon-gi and the photo was manipulated. Therefore, general voters would have understood that Lee had no empirical experience of playing golf or having face-to-face reports related to the Daejang-dong project with Kim Moon-gi during his mayoral tenure, making it difficult to interpret Lee's statement as merely about his state of awareness."

The prosecutor also said, "The defense claims that Lee's statements were about perception and were spontaneous, but this premise is biased and distorted. They focus only on Lee's statement in the 2021 SBS 'Joo Young-jin's News Briefing' interview where he said he did not personally know Kim Moon-gi during his mayoral tenure, ignoring multiple questions and detailed answers from four interviews, thus distorting the facts."

During the prosecutor's statement, the defense interrupted, asking, "Your Honor, as far as I know, the Criminal Procedure Act does not grant the right to restate opinions on the indictment during evidence investigation. Is this allowed?"

The judge responded, "Isn't there always an opportunity to rebut? Must it be done only after the evidence investigation? Can't the prosecution rebut the defense's claims? On what legal basis do you make such a claim? Conversely, is there any basis to prohibit it?"

The defense replied, "It feels unfamiliar to make statements on the indictment during documentary evidence investigation, so please give us a chance to rebut as well."

The judge firmly stated, "I will not prevent you, so please argue freely. The substantive content of the trial is important, not formalities."

Prosecution: Lee’s side distorts facts; not a spontaneous single answer but statements about acts, not perception

The prosecutor resumed, saying, "Despite repeated questions and prepared answers over four sessions amid ongoing demands for explanations, the defense distorted this as spontaneous answers. The claim that the acts did not violate the Public Official Election Act is also inconsistent with the facts. Lee's statements concern acts, not just his state of awareness."

He added, "Receiving work reports from Kim Moon-gi was not about Lee's qualities or character and thus not an issue affecting the election is also inconsistent with the facts. The reports involved key issues related to the Daejang-dong allegations during the presidential primary and election campaign, such as the development of the 1st Industrial Complex site. Lee receiving these reports from Kim Moon-gi, the person responsible, is related to the allegations and directly connected to Lee's qualifications and abilities, sufficiently influencing voters' fair judgment."

Conversely, the defense said, "It is an objective fact that Lee played golf with Yoo Dong-gyu and Kim Moon-gi, but he may not have precisely remembered whether Kim Moon-gi was the one who played golf." Since Lee said he did not know Kim Moon-gi during his mayoral tenure, not that he did not play golf with him, this is an argument that Lee's statement concerned his memory or state of awareness rather than objective acts.

The defense added, "There is a peculiar point in the photos and videos shown by the prosecution previously, where Lee and Kim Moon-gi never made eye contact. I found it very strange, but it helps understand their relationship easily."

Close accompaniment on overseas trip and multiple face-to-face reports... "Even if 599 people are forgotten, one Kim Moon-gi should be remembered"

The prosecution emphasized that Lee could not have not known Kim Moon-gi, considering that Kim closely accompanied Lee during an overseas trip, made several face-to-face reports related to the Daejang-dong project, and even received a commendation from Lee.

The prosecutor said, "Kim Moon-gi accompanied Lee closely during a 9-night, 11-day trip, deviated from official schedules to enjoy leisure activities like golf together. Later, Kim Moon-gi served as the head of the department responsible for the Daejang-dong and 1st Industrial Complex projects, which Lee himself mentioned as achievements during his mayoral tenure, providing multiple face-to-face reports and assisting Lee."

He continued, "Kim Moon-gi was also the head of the Wirye project department, which Lee boasted about, and received a commendation from Lee in recognition of his contributions."

The prosecutor added, "Kim Moon-gi shared memorable empirical acts with Lee in both private and official relationships. I want to ask how many employees among 600 shared such acts with Kim Moon-gi."

He further emphasized, "If someone shared special empirical acts, it is natural from a general voter's perspective to remember them, and memory cannot be severed according to common sense and experience. Even if Lee does not remember 599 team leaders, it is unreasonable to say he does not remember Kim Moon-gi."

Additionally, the prosecution presented evidence that Kim Moon-gi's mobile phone had key schedules such as 'Mayor Lee Jae-myung's birthday' and 'Governor Lee Jae-myung's birthday' entered, and that several text messages were received from a number saved as 'Lee Jae-myung' between November and December 2021.

Defense: Prosecution’s indictment unclear; 'photo manipulation' statement distorted

In response, Lee's side requested the court to allow them to speak and refuted the prosecution's claims.

The defense said, "From the preparation stage, we asked for clarity on the part of the indictment concerning acts, so we could effectively rebut."

They added, "However, the prosecution did not specify the acts subject to false publicity and spoke as if all acts were in one context. We will rebut what we thought was the prosecution's main focus. The prosecution also mentioned Lee's statement about playing golf during the Australia trip, but Lee said, 'The People Power Party took four photos and made it look like I played golf, but they showed parts of a group photo, so it was manipulated.' This statement focused on manipulation, not the fact of playing golf. We do not know if they deny manipulation. Also, Lee's statement that he did not know Kim Moon-gi during his mayoral tenure, when heard from a general voter's perspective, would not be interpreted as implying all past acts over dozens of pages. No one would imagine that."

Regarding whether Lee's broadcast statements were spontaneous, the court said, "We will check with SBS whether a prior questionnaire was provided for 'Joo Young-jin's News Briefing' and review Supreme Court precedents to determine if it was a spontaneous statement."

Prosecution: Kim Moon-gi not a subordinate; Lee decided on Daejang-dong combined development

During the subsequent evidence investigation, the prosecution presented various pieces of evidence, including a memo on Kim Moon-gi's work log labeled '2nd floor report,' commonly used for reports to the Seongnam Mayor's Office, to prove that Kim was a senior executive, not a subordinate, and directly reported to Lee multiple times regarding the Daejang-dong project.

The prosecution first presented several official documents prepared before the Australia trip to prove the work relationship between Lee and Kim Moon-gi during the Daejang-dong development project.

The prosecutor said, "Right after Lee and Kim Moon-gi returned from the overseas trip, Kim was assigned to take over the Daejang-dong project. Gwak OO worked as the head of Seongnam City's urban development project and pushed the Daejang-dong project. Lee instructed Gwak OO to directly design the basic structure of the project."

He emphasized, "Gwak OO was initially on the Australia trip list, with Yoo Dong-gyu as an executive and Kim Moon-gi next."

He added, "In 2013, Gwak OO submitted an interim report to the Seongnam Mayor. The combined development of the Daejang-dong industrial complex was carried out with Lee's involvement. The Seongnam Urban Development Corporation reported on the separation of the 1st Industrial Complex, explaining why direct reporting was necessary, contrary to Lee's initial policy. A meeting on Daejang-dong was held in 2013 with working-level staff attending. The corporation was somewhat passive about the combined development due to issues like the land readjustment method, but Seongnam City’s demands were confirmed. Kim Moon-gi also attended. In a 2013 meeting chaired by Gwak OO, Seongnam City and Yoo Dong-gyu discussed development methods, and the land readjustment acceptance method was undecided. In 2014, the corporation sent a feasibility study document on combined development to Seongnam City, approved by Kim Moon-gi."

The prosecutor said, "Explaining these documents shows that the combined development was pushed forward based on the mayor's decision."

He also said, "Looking at the attendees from the audited agency, Kim Moon-gi's official rank within the corporation is confirmed. He was the highest-ranking official excluding the president, headquarters chief, and division chief. He was the only top executive responsible for the core of the development project within the corporation."

Additionally, the prosecution presented evidence related to the 2015 organizational chart and personnel status of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, pointing out, "As of January 2015, Kim Moon-gi was the team leader of Development Project Team 1. The development headquarters consisted of only two teams, Team 1 and Team 2. Kim was a key position next to the executive level."

He continued, "Yoo Dong-gyu was the planning headquarters chief, the second-highest executive after the president, who resigned and served as acting president. According to testimony from President Hong OO, he opposed the establishment of the Strategic Business Team, but Yoo Dong-gyu established it despite opposition. Excluding the president, headquarters chief, and four executives, there were no level 2 employees, and 12 level 3 employees. Kim Moon-gi, as a level 3 team leader, was one of the top 12 officials excluding executives. As of October 30, 2015, there were zero level 2 and 12 level 3 employees. Kim was promoted to level 2 on March 23, 2020, corresponding to a senior executive position."

Disputes over evidence related to Gyeonggi Province governor period

The trial, which started in the morning, continued until 5:30 p.m. with several recesses.

During breaks, Lee remained seated at the defendant's seat, reviewing materials, taking notes, and discussing with his lawyers, marking circles on documents.

At a 4 p.m. recess, a woman in the gallery attempted to photograph Lee seated at the defendant's seat but was reprimanded by court security officers.

The court asked the prosecution to refrain from lengthy statements regarding evidence.

When the prosecution presented evidence to prove that Kim Moon-gi continued to support Lee even after he became governor of Gyeonggi Province, the defense protested, saying, "This case concerns Lee's statement that he did not know Kim Moon-gi during his mayoral tenure, but the prosecution is trying to explain matters after Lee's election as governor, which is irrelevant."

The prosecutor responded, "Kim Moon-gi continued to assist Lee during his governorship. We want to show that their relationship was continuous, so Lee could not have forgotten Kim during his mayoral tenure."

During the dispute, the prosecutor said, "If you initially objected to the evidence as irrelevant, I would understand, but since you agreed and it was admitted as evidence, it is natural to discuss it during documentary evidence investigation."

The defense said, "We will change our opinion and object to the evidence."

The judge intervened, "The core issue is whether Lee knew Kim Moon-gi during his mayoral tenure, not the connection after becoming governor, right?"

The prosecutor said, "If the documentary evidence investigation becomes lengthy, we can focus on the core, but please consider that we have a plan and direction for proof."

He added, "We can accept requests to reduce length or adjust emphasis, but not to skip due to irrelevance."

Phone call and recorded conversation between Lee’s campaign staff and Kim Moon-gi’s son presented as evidence

During the trial, the prosecution played a CD containing a recorded conversation between Lee's campaign staff member Lee Mo and Kim Moon-gi's son from January to February last year.

The CD contained audio of, "Everyone knows, they obviously know, so why do they pretend not to know? How do you think we will come out of this?"

The prosecutor mentioned audio quality issues and said, "It might be hard to hear in court, so I will refer to the transcript. Lee met Kim Moon-gi's son and said many things. Kim Moon-gi's son kept saying, 'It's too late, why did you say you didn't know? It was a mistake. Very disappointing.' He also protested, 'We went on the Australia trip, knew each other when he was a lawyer, played golf, so why can't you remember?'"

The prosecutor continued, "Lee said, 'The candidate is an actor who performs as written. When someone pressured him, he blacked out and said he didn't know.' Kim Moon-gi's son said, 'The campaign abandoned me. The disciplinary action was led by opposition party council members,' but Lee did not respond much. Lee also seemed to try to persuade Kim Moon-gi's son by saying, 'Will you help?'"

The prosecutor presented a document submission order dated December 28 last year, saying, "This report analyzed whether Lee contacted Kim Moon-gi's son after attempting persuasion, including communication company responses and subscriber inquiries for Kim Yong and Kim OO. Based on these, it is confirmed that Lee contacted or met Kim Moon-gi's son directly or through Kim Yong or Kim OO shortly before."

Prosecutor and defense reconcile near trial end; court expresses concern

During the evidence investigation, the prosecution and Lee's side, who had been reacting sensitively and clashing, created a reconciliation atmosphere by urging caution before the trial ended.

Near the end, the defense said, "Your Honor, before we finish, I would like to say a few words about today's proceedings."

The defense said, "While reading the prosecution's previous opinion letter, I felt the tone was becoming somewhat precarious. In intense litigation, disputes are expected, but personal attacks on defense counsel began to appear. Of course, defense counsel may also unintentionally criticize prosecutors personally, but these aspects seemed to be escalating."

They added, "Today in court, things escalated between both sides, and we feel sorry to the court. We also acted out of line, and prosecutors did too. Is it necessary to behave like this in court? I hope we can lower our tones and express ourselves calmly and objectively about the case."

The judge said to the prosecutor, "You agree, right? But given the nature of the case, I am quite concerned, especially during witness examination."

The prosecutor said, "I agree. We should proceed within the judicial system based on evidence and law. Frankly, I was surprised by the defense's opinion letter."

The defense said again, "We should stop and refine our expressions."

The judge concluded, "We are not crossing the line. See you on the 31st," ending the trial.

Lee, who did not answer most questions from reporters upon arrival, also made no special remarks when leaving the courthouse after the trial.

Yoo Dong-gyu says, "Lee Jae-myung, stop lying"... to appear as witness at next trial (31st)

Yoo, former head of the Daejang-dong project, appeared at the Seoul Central District Court for the trial the previous day. After the morning trial, he told reporters, "I hope he stops lying. That's what I want to say," when asked about Lee's second trial attendance.

He said, "Lee said he had no connection with Kim Man-bae, but it was recently revealed that a level 2 public official is among the top five high-ranking officials in Gyeonggi Province excluding the governor and deputy governor. Someone close to Kim Man-bae was among them. These relationships are gradually being revealed, and I think the mask will be removed."

Regarding golf, Yoo said, "I will testify in court later, but the media misunderstood the golf cart. It was a two-person cart. We rented two carts, one for me and one for Lee. Kim Moon-gi drove the cart to assist Lee."

He explained, "At foreign public golf courses, the rough is long, so you often lose the ball. After tee shots, you have to find the ball yourself because there are no caddies like in Korea." He added, "During that process, Lee asked, 'Team Leader Kim, are you there?' But saying they never made eye contact is unreasonable and hard to accept."

When asked if Kim Moon-gi directly reported to Lee multiple times, Yoo said, "He was the top person in charge. Our team leader is equivalent to a department head at city hall, not just a team leader." He added, "Our organization is team-based, so our team leader is above department head level and among the highest-ranking employees."

He added, "Therefore, he went directly to report and did everything."

Yoo is scheduled to appear as a witness at Lee's third trial on the 31st.