[Exclusive] Lee Jae-myung Trial 'Perjury' Businessman Admits Charges... Prosecution Conducts Intensive Investigation for Two Consecutive Days

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea.
Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

It was confirmed on the 29th that businessman Kim Mo (52), who is accused of perjury in the trial concerning Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, admitted to the perjury-related charges during a prosecution investigation conducted after his arrest warrant was dismissed.

According to the legal community on that day, the Anti-Corruption Investigation Division 1 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (Chief Prosecutor Eom Hee-jun), which is investigating the Baekhyeon-dong case, summoned Kim yesterday and conducted an intensive investigation from 2:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The prosecution also summoned Kim again at 2:00 p.m. that day. This means that Kim was summoned for investigation two consecutive days following the dismissal of his arrest warrant on the 27th.

During the investigation the previous day, Kim changed his previous stance of denying the charges and admitted to the perjury charges specified in the prosecution's arrest warrant request. On the 22nd, the day before the arrest warrant was requested, Kim maintained that he did not commit perjury while testifying about the facts at that time, but he reversed his statement. However, Kim is known to have maintained his previous denial regarding the other charges, such as bribery through mediation.

This change in Kim’s attitude appears to be a result of his judgment that cooperating partially with the prosecution’s investigation would be advantageous in a situation where the prosecution might reapply for his arrest warrant.

Earlier, on the 23rd, the prosecution requested a pre-arrest warrant for Kim on two counts of bribery through mediation under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and perjury charges. The charges applied to Kim by the prosecution were: ▲ bribery through mediation under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes for receiving 3.5 billion KRW out of 7 billion KRW from Jeong Ba-ul, CEO of Asia Developer, in exchange for mediating permits related to the Baekhyeon-dong development project promoted by Jeong Ba-ul together with Kim In-seop, former CEO of Korea Housing Technology, who is known to be close to Lee and Jeong Jin-sang, former Political Coordination Officer of the Democratic Party leader’s office; ▲ perjury for testifying as a witness in Lee’s trial for violating the Public Official Election Act at Lee’s request while assisting Jeong; ▲ and receiving 71 million KRW from a company after arranging for Jeong to supply wiretapping equipment to Seongnam City and others, among three charges.

The trial in which Kim’s perjury became an issue was the case where Lee was indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act due to remarks related to ‘impersonating a prosecutor.’ Lee was tried in December 2018, acquitted in the first trial in May 2019, and acquitted again in the appeal trial in September 2019 and the Supreme Court in July 2020.

The prosecution applied the perjury charge to Kim based on their judgment that some of Kim’s testimony given as a witness at Lee’s first trial on February 14, 2019, was false. Regardless of whether Kim’s testimony played a decisive role in Lee’s acquittal in the first trial, if Kim gave testimony contrary to his memory, the crime of perjury is established.

Even if perjury occurred during the trial, since Lee was acquitted rather than convicted because of it, the case is not subject to retrial. However, if Kim’s perjury is true, Lee could face charges of instigating perjury.

Earlier, on the 27th, Judge Yoon Jae-nam, in charge of arrest warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, dismissed Kim’s arrest warrant, stating, “Considering the need to guarantee the suspect’s right to defense, the fact that objective evidence seems to have been secured to some extent through search and seizure, and that the actual residence has been identified, there is somewhat insufficient reason for the necessity and grounds for detention at this stage.”

Afterward, around the prosecution, there was a forecast that although Kim’s arrest warrant was dismissed, since the court cited reasons such as ‘sufficient evidence secured’ and ‘certainty of residence’ rather than ‘lack of evidence of the crime,’ the prosecution’s investigative momentum would not significantly decline.

A prosecution official said, “This case is serious because it involves not only the main bribery through mediation in Baekhyeon-dong but also significant perjury and subsequent bribery through mediation. Perjury benefits someone, and bribery through mediation involves accomplices, so there is inevitably a concern about evidence destruction. Considering the seriousness of the matter and the risk of evidence destruction, we find it somewhat difficult to accept the court’s decision to dismiss the warrant.”

He added, “We will carefully analyze the reasons for dismissal and decide the direction of the investigation, including whether to reapply for the arrest warrant, through additional investigation.”