(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Young and Lee Bal-eum = Former President Yoon Seok-yeol, who was indicted on charges of making false statements while a presidential candidate, was sentenced to probation in the appeals court, which invalidates his election.
If this sentence is confirmed, the People Power Party must return the 39.7 billion won in election expenses it received during the presidential election.
Immediately after the ruling, former President Yoon's side announced his intention to appeal, saying, "There are many unfair aspects to the appellate court's ruling," and the Supreme Court is expected to make the final decision.
On the 4th, Seoul High Court Criminal Division 2-1 (Judges Baek Seung-yeop, Hwang Seung-tae, and Kim Young-hyeon) sentenced former President Yoon, who was sent to trial on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, to 1 year and 6 months in prison and 3 years of probation, as in the first trial.
As in the first trial, the court found former President Yoon guilty of all charges of publishing false information while he was a People Power Party presidential candidate.
To reach this conclusion, we examined the meaning of each statement in question, the related objective facts, and whether false information was published.
First, he pointed out that former President Yoon's statement at the Kwanhun Club invitational debate on December 14, 2021 to the effect that "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" was a false statement.
The court pointed out that 'introducing a lawyer' here can be interpreted both from a factual perspective that simply connects the parties and the lawyer, and from a legal perspective that arranges for the two to enter into a delegation contract regarding a legal case.
Former President Yoon's side has argued that it was not a public announcement of false facts because the meaning of the statement was the latter, that is, "We did not arrange a seniority contract between the two people."
However, the court explained that considering the context of the statement, it should be seen as meaning that no action was taken to even connect former Chief Yoon with a lawyer.
In addition, this statement was considered to be contrary to the objective facts that can be seen when combining the content of the 2012 media interview in which former President Yoon admitted to introducing a lawyer, and the details of phone calls and text messages with former Chief Yoon.
The court said, “The defendant has been working with law and language as a prosecutor for a long time, and he appears to have had a deep understanding of how his remarks will be received by the media through numerous interviews and discussions during the People Power Party’s internal primary process,” and concluded, “It is reasonable to assume that he was aware of how the attorney’s introduction remarks would be understood by general voters and that the content is different from objective facts.”
The court found that former President Yoon was also charged with publishing false information in an interview at the launch ceremony of the Buddhist Leaders Forum on January 17, 2022, to the effect that "I was introduced to (Geonjinbeop) Jeon Seong-bae by a party official, and I have never met him together with First Lady Kim Kun-hee."
Former President Yoon's side also denied the charges, claiming that this statement was to the effect that "Jeon Seong-bae was introduced by a party official at the People Power Party New Year's event on January 1, and his spouse, First Lady Kim Kun-hee, was not present at the time."
However, the court ruled, "Considering the situation at the time of the statement, the context, the overall purpose of the expression, and the method of connecting the phrases, from the perspective of the general elector, it is understood that the defendant has never met Jeon Seong-bae with his spouse, and that he did not form a relationship with Jeon Seong-bae through his spouse."
In addition, he pointed out that even if former President Yoon misunderstood and answered the question as asking whether he met Mr. Jeon with Mrs. Kim at a certain time and place, this is not taken into consideration when judging the meaning of the statement.
The court pointed out, "The meaning of the expression in question must be judged based on the overall impression that the expression gives to the elector, and the consistent precedent of the Supreme Court is that the objective meaning of the expression cannot be said to depend on the subjective circumstances of the person who expressed it." He added, "The defendant's subjective circumstances should not be considered in interpreting the expression unless it is revealed on the surface."
At the same time, former President Yoon pointed out that it was acknowledged that he had actually met with Ms. Kim several times since first meeting Mr. Jeon through an introduction by Ms. Kim in 2013.
Accordingly, it was held that "the defendant's remarks, which are understood by the general electorate to mean that he met Jeon Seong-bae by chance during the election campaign through a party official and that he has never met his spouse in the past, constitute a public announcement of false facts."
He also said, "The circumstances of Jeon Seong-bae's introduction and whether he met with his spouse are facts experienced directly by the defendant," adding that former President Yoon himself recognized that the remarks were false.
As a reference point for this judgment, the court presented the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the case of President Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act, which was handed down in May last year.
When determining whether a specific expression constitutes the publication of false facts, it must be examined based on the situation at the time the statement was made and how it is understood by the general electorate based on the overall context of the statement.
Based on this judgment, the Supreme Court at the time overturned and remanded the case with a finding of guilt.
As in the first trial, former President Yoon's side claimed not guilty based on the Supreme Court's unanimous decision on charges such as President Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act, which was sentenced in July 2020, but it was not accepted.
The gist of this ruling is that unless false information is actively and unilaterally expressed at a candidate debate, regardless of the topic or context of the discussion, it cannot be considered a crime of publishing false information under the Public Official Election Act.
On this day, the second trial court pointed out, "The ruling takes into account the fact that during the debate, questions and answers, arguments and counter-arguments between candidates took place spontaneously and continuously in a limited time, so there was bound to be a limit to the clarity of expression."
He went on to point out, “The problem in this case is the remarks made by the defendant during a question-and-answer session or interview with reporters that were completely different from the candidate debate.”
Explaining the background of the sentencing, the appellate court said, "The defendant, who can be seen as a party-recommended candidate with an obligation to provide data to make a correct judgment in the election to elect the president, the chief executive of state affairs, publicized false information during the election process," and reprimanded, "The elector's right to make the right choice was violated, and the fairness of the election and the legitimacy of the procedure were damaged."
The court pointed out that at the time former President Yoon made the false statement, the gap in approval ratings between him and Lee Jae-myung, then Democratic Party presidential candidate, was within the margin of error, and pointed out that the ripple effect of the statement was not small.
Former President Yoon's side has requested that the sentence be lowered in the appeals court, considering that the People Power Party will have to return a large amount of election expenses if the first trial sentence is confirmed.
However, the second trial pointed out, "It is basically a matter for the legislator to decide how much disadvantage will be imposed on those who have been criminally punished for election crimes. If judges overly consider the fact that significant disadvantages, such as invalidation of election, will be imposed, problems that should be resolved through legislative discretion in the area of politics must be resolved in the area of the rule of law, which may distort judgments of guilt or innocence or sentencing."
The sentencing took place for about 40 minutes starting at 2 p.m. As with the first trial, the trial was broadcast live.
Former President Yoon, who was listening to the sentence from the defendant's stand, laughed and spoke to his lawyer when the court said, "This amounts to publishing false facts."
When the sentence was announced, he stared at the court for a while, then looked back towards the audience and smiled as if he was empty.
Immediately after the sentencing, some supporters of former President Yoon in the audience swore at the judge.
Immediately after the sentencing, former President Yoon's legal team issued a statement and announced an appeal, saying, "This ruling is an unfair judgment that recognizes criminal liability by isolating some of the remarks without sufficiently considering the context and key evidence to explain the political suspicions raised during the election process." They also announced an appeal, saying, "We will correct the substantive truth and constitutional values in the Supreme Court."
Special Prosecutor Kim Kyung-ho, a member of the Special Prosecutor Min Joong-ki team in charge of the investigation, prosecution, and filing of charges, said, "I think it is a ruling that the public can understand," and added, "I am grateful to the court for faithfully reviewing the case."
According to the Public Official Election Act, if a presidential candidate is elected or receives more than 15% of the votes, the National Election Commission receives full compensation for election expenses. However, if a fine of more than 1 million won is confirmed for an election crime, the election is invalidated and the election expenses must be returned by the affiliated party.
Therefore, if former President Yoon's second trial sentence is confirmed, his election will be invalidated, and the People Power Party will also have to return the 39.7 billion won in election expenses.
However, the effect of invalidating the election takes effect from the time the judgment is confirmed. Accordingly, the general interpretation in the legal community is that all legal actions, including personnel actions, taken by former President Yoon while he was in office are not invalid.
One lawyer explained, “It is a general principle of criminal law that the effect of a criminal judgment takes place at the same time as it is confirmed, and the effect of invalidating the election should be seen as taking place from the time the sentence is confirmed.” He added, “There is no stipulated theory or legal provision as to whether all the actions taken during the time of office will be considered non-existent, but it is generally interpreted that the effect of the exercise of authority while in office remains the same.”
