[Legal Issue Check] The Basis for Different Judgments in Lee Jae-myung's First and Second Trials

"Remarks about Director Kim are expressions of 'subjective perception'"
"Do not constitute false statement publication"
Comments on land use change are 'expressions of opinion'
'Threat' remarks may be exaggerated but are not false statements

Regarding the ruling on the public official election law case of Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, which changed from a first-instance suspended prison sentence to a second-instance acquittal after 131 days, the legal community interpreted that "the scope of the 'act,' a constituent element of the crime of false statement publication, was strictly applied, viewing Lee's statements as 'subjective perception' rather than an act." For the crime of false statement publication to be established, an objective false statement about a specific act must be recognized. However, if the defendant's remarks contain thoughts, i.e., 'perception,' or can be interpreted as an exaggerated opinion, it should not be immediately judged as an 'intentional lie.'

The second-instance court stated that the remarks related to 'Kim Moon-gi and golf,' which were considered 'false statement publication (violation of election law)' in the first instance, might involve photos submitted by the prosecution that could have been manipulated and were over-interpreted. The court also invoked the long-standing legal maxim, "When in doubt, favor the defendant," and ruled that it should be regarded as an 'expression of opinion' rather than a 'statement of fact.'

"The issue of 'not knowing Kim Moon-gi' is a matter of perception, not an act"

The court divided Lee’s remarks regarding former director Kim Moon-gi into three categories: ① "Did not know Kim Moon-gi as a subordinate during his tenure as mayor of Seongnam," ② "Got to know Kim Moon-gi after being indicted under the Public Official Election Act during his governorship," and ③ "Did not play golf with Kim Moon-gi." The prosecution argued that these statements denied 'associative acts' with former director Kim and thus constituted false statements, but the court judged that expressions such as 'did not know' or 'knew' in ① and ② relate to 'perception' and are not 'acts' punishable under the election law’s false statement publication crime. The court found it difficult to view these as denials of associative acts.

The second-instance court notably overturned the first-instance guilty verdict on statement ③. The first-instance court judged that Lee made this statement to sever ties with the Daejang-dong corruption allegations and thus lied. However, the second-instance court stated that statement ③ merely supports the claim in statement ① and does not have independent meaning. The second-instance court also said, "The photo is a group photo taken by 10 people on an overseas business trip and is not the original," adding, "The original does not support the suspicion of playing golf, and parts of the original were selectively shown, which can be seen as 'manipulated.'" The court further stated, "If multiple interpretations are possible, interpreting only in a way that fits the charges contradicts the principle of 'when in doubt, favor the defendant.'"

"Baekhyeon-dong remarks also expressions of opinion"

The second-instance court also ruled that Lee Jae-myung’s statements that "the change of use was inevitably made according to the legal request of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport" and that "Seongnam city officials were threatened by Ministry officials with accusations of dereliction of duty" are 'expressions of opinion.'

The first-instance court had ruled these as false statement publications, stating, "The change of use of the Baekhyeon-dong site was Seongnam city’s own decision, and Ministry officials never threatened Seongnam city," but this was overturned. The second-instance court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling that "when it is difficult to definitively categorize a statement as either an expression of opinion or false statement publication, it should be regarded as an expression of opinion or abstract judgment in principle." Regarding the 'threat,' the second-instance court acknowledged "the situation of being pressured in various ways concerning the change of use of public institution land" and said, "Exaggeration is difficult to consider as false statement publication."