During the Warrant Hearing, "Sufficient Evidence of Charges" Found in Perjury Coaching: Could It Become the Prosecution's Counterattack Card?

The prosecution's request for an arrest warrant against Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, has drawn attention as the only charge recognized as "substantiated" is the 'perjury coaching' allegation, which may be used as a counterattack card.

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is attending the detention hearing (warrant review) held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 26th of last month. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

According to the legal community on the 4th, the perjury coaching charge originally arose during the investigation of the Baekhyeon-dong development preferential treatment suspicion case. After receiving the Baekhyeon-dong case from the police, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office conducted search and seizure operations on about 40 locations, including the residence of Kim In-seop, former CEO of Korea Housing Technology and a 'government lobbyist,' on February 7. The residence of Kim Jin-sung, a close businessman accused of conspiring with former CEO Kim to receive large sums of money in exchange for permits, was also subject to search and seizure. During this process, the prosecution detected circumstances indicating that Kim had committed perjury during Lee's trial on February 14, 2019.

It is reported that the prosecution secured a recording file of phone calls between Kim and Lee, recorded by Kim from December 2018. The recording reportedly contains content where Lee, who was indicted for false statement publication under the Public Official Election Act related to a past 'impersonation of a prosecutor' case, repeatedly called and requested Kim, who appeared as a witness in his trial, to commit perjury by saying, "Just say you heard such things."

Regarding this, the prosecution requested an arrest warrant for Kim in March, but the court dismissed it. Subsequently, Kim's stance changed, which gave momentum to the prosecution's investigation. Until the warrant request, Kim acknowledged the facts but denied perjury; however, after the dismissal, he confessed during the investigation that he "could not refuse the request of the incumbent governor and thus committed perjury."

Accordingly, when the prosecution requested Lee's arrest warrant on the 18th of last month, they also specified the perjury coaching charge. Although the court dismissed the arrest warrant on the 27th of last month, it judged the degree of substantiation differently for each charge, stating that the perjury coaching charge "appears to be substantiated." The legal community evaluates that this could effectively lead to a guilty verdict during the trial process.

Facing the risk of weakening investigative momentum, the prosecution is likely to actively utilize the perjury coaching charge. There is also speculation that the prosecution may indict Lee first on this charge. This could prevent criticism of delaying the investigation, and since the case structure is simple, the trial could be concluded early. If a guilty verdict is obtained, it is seen as a strategy to gain momentum for the remaining investigation.

Based on past precedents, there is also an expectation that a prison sentence or more can be imposed solely on the perjury coaching charge. According to the Supreme Court's sentencing guidelines, cases where perjury was coached or where perjury influenced the trial outcome are considered aggravating factors.

Last year, the Busan District Court East Branch sentenced a gas station operator to two years in prison for coaching an employee to commit perjury in a trial over tax evasion amounting to about 3.1 billion won, and this was confirmed after the second trial. Thanks to the perjury, the operator was acquitted of some charges. In 2019, the Daegu District Court Pohang Branch sentenced a provincial assembly member to six months in prison with a two-year probation for instructing a campaign brochure producer to commit perjury in a trial for false statement publication under the Public Official Election Act.

However, the legal community also expresses caution, noting that unlike the court's warrant review, criminal trials may require stricter proof, so it remains to be seen whether Lee's perjury coaching charge will lead to a guilty verdict.