[2024 National Audit] Joo Jin-woo "Live Broadcast of Lee Jae-myung's First Trial Verdict" vs Park Gyun-taek & Jeong Cheong-rae "Request for Reassignment of the Court"

During the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit of the Seoul High Court and others, a ruling party member proposed that the first trial sentencing hearing of Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, should be broadcast live.

Opposition party lawmakers opposed this and requested the reassignment of the trial panel handling Lee's trial related to remittances to North Korea, which is ongoing at the Suwon District Court.

Joo Jin-woo, People Power Party member; Jung Cheong-rae, Democratic Party member; Park Gyun-taek, Democratic Party member. Photo by National Assembly Broadcast Capture

At the court audit held by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 22nd, Ju Jin-woo, a member of the People Power Party, said, "Chief Judge of the Central District Court, I believe the first trial sentencing result for Lee Jae-myung scheduled for November should be broadcast live," adding, "There are already rules regarding courtroom attendance and filming. If the presiding judge agrees and the defendant consents, meaning if Lee Jae-myung agrees, live broadcasting can naturally be allowed. Even without consent, if it is deemed appropriate for the public interest, disclosure is possible."

Ju said, "This regulation was revised under Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo's administration ahead of the sentencing of former Presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak," and added, "I think some balanced measures between the ruling and opposition parties are necessary to protect judicial independence."

He stated, "There are three main reasons why live broadcasting is necessary. First, as you can see, there are relevant regulations, and there is precedent for public trials in the first trial for former Presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak on three occasions."

He continued, "Second, it is desirable from the perspective of the public's right to know. This concerns the public interest. At that time, former President Park Geun-hye's broadcast had a 4% viewership rating, and former President Lee Myung-bak's was about 8-9%. Now, the sentencing for Lee Jae-myung involves whether the election invalidation sentence applies and whether the state will recover 43.4 billion won in election expenses, so public interest is high, and the viewership will be significantly higher than previous cases, reflecting concentrated public attention."

Ju added, "Also, Lee Jae-myung claims that 'evidence was fabricated,' especially that 'the recordings were edited,' so I think he should agree to live broadcasting for his own benefit."

Referring to the three criminal cases for which Lee Jae-myung is about to be sentenced, Ju compared them to previous cases such as the political scandal.

He said, "Of course, some may argue, 'Is perjury coaching or violation of the Public Official Election Act the same as the political scandal?' Fundamentally, the perjury coaching case is an important precedent as a case of judicial obstruction, and the violation of the Public Official Election Act can serve as a standard for future elections."

He continued, "Even aside from the violation of the Public Official Election Act and perjury coaching cases, the next scheduled sentencing is for the remittance to North Korea case," and pointed out, "In this case, 8 million dollars were sent to North Korea, and a private company made payments on behalf, leading to charges of third-party bribery. This is a serious national disgrace case and cannot be considered a minor case compared to the cases of former Presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak mentioned earlier."

Furthermore, Ju said, "At that time, former Presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak were so-called 'dead powers,' but Lee Jae-myung is currently the leader of a major opposition party and a 'living power.'"

When Ju asked Kim Jeong-jung, Chief Judge of the Seoul Central District Court, "Considering these various points, I think the court should handle this case with balanced standards. What do you think?" Kim replied, "As you said, according to the Court Organization Act and related Supreme Court regulations, live broadcasting of sentencing is possible with the presiding judge's permission."

However, Kim avoided a direct answer, saying, "This concerns trial procedure matters, and such procedural matters, including substantive judgments like guilt or sentencing, are all core areas of the trial."

Ju responded, "I am not trying to interfere with the trial, but I think a broader discussion about the standards is necessary. If the standards are inconsistent and left to the discretion of each trial panel, politically sensitive cases might be judged differently by each panel, which could cause public misunderstanding. I hope you will look into this."

Democratic Party lawmaker Park Gyuntaek. [Image source=Yonhap News]

Following Ju, Park Gyun-taek, a Democratic Party member, asked, "Chief Judge of the Central District Court, do you agree with the ruling party member's suggestion that a public trial is necessary for the opposition party leader?"

Kim replied, "If I comment specifically on that, it might influence the decisions of the trial panel in charge..."

Park argued that the political scandal cases and Lee Jae-myung's case are different.

He said, "You seem to be citing the cases of former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye. Those former presidents were involved in political scandal and corruption cases that everyone agreed on. Because there was no objection, public trials were exceptionally allowed, which was reasonable. But the opposition party leader has been investigated for three years with 70 prosecutors mobilized, and is perceived as a victim of political oppression, isn't that right?"

He continued, "But demanding that scenes of him being repeatedly brought to court and sitting in court be exposed is a very human rights-violating claim, so I cannot agree. What do you think?"

Kim replied, "As I have said, this is a matter for the presiding judge's permission and a trial matter."

Park said, "I understand. I believe the trial panel will consider the defendant's wishes and weigh public interest against the defendant's private interests carefully."

Park then summoned the Chief Judge of the Suwon High Court and brought up the case of Lee Hwa-young, former Deputy Governor for Peace of Gyeonggi Province, who was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months in prison in the first trial at the Suwon District Court for charges related to remittances to North Korea.

He mentioned that the testimony of Kim Seong-tae, chairman of Ssangbangwool, played a decisive role in the guilty verdict, and that new evidence has emerged after the first trial. He urged careful consideration of these points in the appeal trial. Park had served as a legal advisor to Lee Jae-myung before being elected as a member of the National Assembly and had actually acted as his defense counsel.

Park said, "There are external criticisms and many concerns, so I hope you, Chief Judge, can convey the trial panel's opinions on this," adding, "This is not interference with the trial but conveying the voices of the public from a judicial administrative perspective. Isn't this acceptable?"

Lee Sang-joo, Chief Judge of the Suwon High Court, replied, "I will carefully review your points and consider whether to convey them to the trial panel."

Park urged again, "If it is difficult for you to convey this directly, you could at least tell them to watch today's National Assembly broadcast recording. You can at least say that, can't you?"

Park then summoned the Chief Judge of the Suwon District Court, where Lee Jae-myung's remittance to North Korea case is ongoing, expressing dissatisfaction that the trial panel that sentenced the former deputy governor to a guilty verdict is also handling Lee's case.

He asked, "Isn't the trial panel that sentenced Lee Hwa-young guilty in the first trial for the remittance to North Korea case the Suwon District Court? But that panel also expressed a guilty belief regarding Lee Jae-myung in the first trial. I don't know if it is appropriate for that panel to insist on continuing to handle the trial. What do you think?"

Kim Se-yoon, Chief Judge of the Suwon District Court, explained, "First, the case was not assigned arbitrarily by us but automatically assigned by the case assignment system. There was no arbitrariness by the assigner in this process."

He added, "As I mentioned earlier, current laws and regulations do not clearly specify disqualification or exclusion from assignment for cases involving co-defendants. In such situations, excluding a trial panel because it handled a co-defendant's case could raise concerns about the fairness of case assignment, so we did not exclude it and assigned it fairly through the automatic system."

However, Park reiterated the circumstances after the first trial and requested reconsideration of reassignment.

He asked, "I don't know what intentions the judge had or how much effort was made for an accurate trial, but since the results contradict objective data and cause distrust, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider reassignment to avoid misunderstandings? Why do you insist on continuing?"

Kim replied, "If new evidence is submitted after the verdict, the trial panel will fairly judge and consider the new evidence without being bound by previous conclusions in subsequent proceedings."

Park said again, "There is a saying that the enemy of truth is not lies but prejudice. If there is that level of prejudice, I worry how easy it would be to break it. Aren't there cases where reassignment occurs even if legal grounds for recusal are not clearly defined? I have seen statistics on such cases to avoid misunderstandings..."

Kim said, "I cannot say that such grounds do not exist."

Park said, "An old lawmaker mentioned such cases before, so I have seen them. I hope you could advise on the possibility of reassignment in such ways."

Kim replied, "In principle, reassignment requires a request from the presiding judge."

Park said, "If it is difficult to say directly, I would appreciate it if you could at least convey that they should watch this broadcast."

Jeong Cheong-rae, Democratic Party member. Photo by National Assembly Broadcast Service capture

After Park finished his questioning, Jeong Cheong-rae, chairman of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and a Democratic Party member, joined in.

Jeong asked Kim Se-yoon, Chief Judge of the Suwon District Court, "Are you the Chief Judge of the Suwon District Court?" and then said, "Regardless of Park Gyun-taek's questioning, I would like to say a few words as the chairman."

He said, "Please listen carefully. I don't know about the People Power Party, but many citizens talk about separating investigative and prosecutorial powers and also separating prosecutors' investigation and prosecution powers. The reason is that if the same prosecutor investigates, prosecutes, and tries a case, the person who investigated wants to prosecute, and if prosecuted, wants a guilty verdict. That is human nature. So separating these powers fits democracy, doesn't it?"

Jeong continued, "Broadly speaking, if I tried a case, and the opposing suspect claims they are unfairly tried, and a similar case is judged by the same judge, judges are not gods. They can have various prejudices and preconceptions."

He added, "So I think it is right for a different judge to try such cases regardless of trial advantages or disadvantages. This is similar to the appellate system. For example, if a first trial judge becomes a high court judge and judges the same case in the second trial, if the verdict differs from the first trial, it means admitting the first trial was wrong. That is problematic."

Jeong said, "Therefore, while the trial panel's customs and systems are important, in such cases, to avoid misunderstandings, I personally think it is unreasonable to say 'We did our job because the assignment was automatic.'"

He added, "I think the court should judge this well on its own. This applies not only to this case but also to other cases. The assignment was automatic by computer, but if there is a problem, it can be corrected. Please keep this in mind."

When both Park and Jeong requested reassignment of Lee Jae-myung's trial panel, People Power Party lawmakers strongly opposed, saying it was inappropriate.

Jeong said, "I have not only said this today but have mentioned it several times when the Constitutional Court or Supreme Court handled cases. So I hope there is no misunderstanding."

Despite continued strong opposition from People Power Party lawmakers, Jeong said, "This person is speaking without the right to speak, so please refrain," and told the next committee member to proceed with questioning.