Court "Ordinary people do not try to verify suspicions by looking at past articles one by one."

(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Young-seop = The second trial court, which looked into former President Yoon Seok-yeol's charge of publishing false information, appeared to have carefully considered the perceptions of former President Yoon, the speaker, and the general electorate, the listener.

At this time, it was understood that it was also taken into consideration that general voters do not verify suspicions related to former President Yoon by looking through past articles one by one.

According to the legal community on the 4th, Criminal Division 2-1 of the Seoul High Court (Judges Baek Seung-yeop, Hwang Seung-tae, Kim Young-hyun) detailed the judgment process leading up to the guilty conclusion in the appeal court ruling of former President Yoon.

The court's multifaceted analysis stood out in determining whether former President Yoon Seok-yeol's so-called 'introducing a lawyer' remark at a debate invited to the Kwanhun Club on December 14, 2021 was a public announcement of false information.

Former President Yoon said at the time, "I have never introduced a lawyer named Lee (from the Central Investigation Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office) to former Yongsan Tax Office Chief Yoon Woo-jin."

Former President Yoon's side argued that the fact that he 'did not introduce' during his remarks should be interpreted as a denial of the act of arranging a formal appointment contract between former Chief Yoon and Attorney Lee, and that it was not a public announcement of false information.

However, the court dismissed the fact that from the perspective of the general electorate, even the act of simply connecting this lawyer to former Chief Yoon should be viewed as unfair.

As a basis for this, former President Yoon recognized the difference between two perspectives in interpreting “attorney introduction”: a factual perspective, which refers to a simple connection, and a legal perspective, which refers to formal appointment mediation.

It was judged that he was aware of how his remarks would be understood by the general electorate.

In the process of explaining this, the court cited media interviews from December 2012, when former President Yoon admitted to introducing a lawyer, and remarks made at the confirmation hearing for the prosecutor general candidate in July 2019.

The court pointed out, "During the interview in 2012, he expressed that he had introduced this lawyer, but in relation to lawyer Park, he expressed that he was appointed by brother Yoon Woo-jin. From that time on, he was clearly aware that there was a difference between an introduction from a legal perspective and an introduction from a factual perspective regarding the meaning of introducing a lawyer."

In addition, attention was paid to how former President Yoon explained at the Prosecutor General's confirmation hearing in 2019, "The fact that I did not introduce a lawyer meant that I did not arrange for the case to be taken, and it did not mean that I did not ask someone to meet."

At the time, former President Yoon completely denied the fact of introducing a lawyer, but when the interview recording was released in 2012, he finally explained the above, saying, "If there was a misunderstanding, I apologize for not being able to clearly state it."

The court interpreted this, saying, "The fact that he denied the introduction of a lawyer before the initial recording of the personnel hearing was released shows that he was fully aware that the general public would understand that the introduction from a factual perspective was not recognized."

At this point, the court pointed out that if the general electorate had been familiar with the contents of the 2012 interview and the 2019 personnel hearing, there was room for understanding that former President Yoon Seok-yeol's remarks were a denial of the act of introduction from a legal perspective.

He continued, "However, even if the general electorate heard the defendant's remarks at the presidential debate, it is difficult to believe that they would make an effort to carefully verify the truth of the suspicions surrounding the defendant by looking for past articles on whether a lawyer was introduced in relation to Yoon Woo-jin's criminal case."

"Furthermore, because there is a difference in the level of political interest in the prosecutor general candidate and the presidential candidate, it does not appear that the majority of voters would have watched the defendant's prosecutor general candidate confirmation hearing with interest," he said.

On this day, the second trial court sentenced former President Yoon to one year and six months in prison and three years of probation, as in the first trial.

If this sentence is confirmed, former President Yoon's election will be invalidated according to the Public Official Election Act, and the People Power Party will have to return the 39.7 billion won in election expenses it received during the presidential election to the National Election Commission.