Seoul: The Supreme Court's full bench, under the leadership of Chief Justice Jo Hee-de, has overturned the appeals court's acquittal of Democratic Party (DP) presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung. Lee had been indicted on charges of making false statements in violation of the Public Official Election Act, and the case is now headed back to the Seoul High Court for a retrial.
According to Yonhap News Agency, the Supreme Court has set clear criteria for judging the dissemination of false information during election campaigns. It emphasized that a candidate's statements should be interpreted from the perspective of the average voter rather than that of the candidate or the judiciary. Additionally, courts must determine whether a questionable statement is significant enough to impair voters' ability to make an informed choice. A majority of the justices, 10 out of 12, concluded that two statements made by Lee during the last presidential campaign met the legal threshold for falsehood: one implying he had played golf with the late Kim Moon-ki, a former executive at Seongnam Development Corporation, and another suggesting the controversial rezoning of the Baekhyeon-dong site resulted from pressure by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
This ruling aligns more closely with the decision of the first trial court, which had imposed a suspended one-year prison sentence, rather than the appeals court's acquittal. If Lee receives a fine of 1 million won ($700) or more in the retrial and the verdict is upheld by the Supreme Court, he will be disqualified from running for public office.
The Seoul High Court is expected to deliver a guilty verdict, though with the presidential election just a month away, a final ruling is unlikely before the vote. This creates an unprecedented situation where the poll front-runner campaigns under the cloud of a pending conviction.
Responsibility for this crisis is attributed to both Lee and the DP. Despite the initial court's suspended prison sentence, the party did not prepare an alternative strategy and continued with a "Lee-centric" approach. After the appellate court's acquittal, Lee and the party celebrated the verdict as a "vindication of justice." However, following the Supreme Court's decision, they criticized the ruling as "rushed" and an "improper intervention" in the election. With 10 justices confirming Lee's statements as false, the focus should be on the candidate and his party, who ought to consider offering a sincere public apology. Instead, Lee rejected the decision, claiming it contradicted his beliefs.
The judiciary also bears some responsibility. The Public Official Election Act mandates a ruling within specific timeframes for each trial, yet Lee's case lingered for over two years at the district court level. Although the Supreme Court has acted swiftly now, the initial delay has caused significant political confusion.
If Lee wins the election, further legal and constitutional uncertainties may arise. Article 84 of the Constitution grants a sitting president immunity from criminal prosecution, but its application to pre-inauguration indictments is unclear. Continuing the trial post-election could result in Lee's removal despite a victory. The Supreme Court did not address Article 84 in its ruling, leaving constitutional ambiguity and casting a shadow over the election. Resolving this legal uncertainty is crucial to preventing deeper national division.
Responsibility also extends to former President Yoon Suk Yeol, whose unlawful imposition of martial law advanced the presidential election by two years. Without his actions, the nation would not be facing a presidential vote amid such turmoil.
Voters are now left to choose between a candidate facing legal jeopardy and one representing the party accountable for the martial law crisis. The political establishment and the judiciary must fully confront their roles in this unprecedented situation.