The first trial of Democratic Party (DP) leader Lee Jae-myung, who is accused of instructing Ssangbangwool Group (SBW) to illegally transfer US$8 million to North Korea between 2019 and 2020, is set to resume on Apr. 23. The case returns to court after a four-month suspension triggered by Lee’s motion to recuse the presiding judges. Since the indictment last June, a formal hearing has yet to be held.
According to the legal community on Apr. 7, the 11th Criminal Division of the Suwon District Court, which is overseeing the case, will reopen proceedings against Lee, former Gyeonggi Province Vice Governor for Peace Lee Hwa-young, and former SBW Chairman Kim Seong-tae. The three are charged with third-party bribery under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, and breaches of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act.
The court has scheduled Apr. 23 as a preparatory hearing date. It will mark the first court session in 132 days since Lee filed the recusal motion on Dec. 13.
The case was indicted on Jun. 12, 2024. Between then and Dec. 17, four preparatory hearings were held. These sessions serve to organize legal arguments and set the trial schedule ahead of formal proceedings. Defendants are not required to appear at preparatory hearings, and Lee has not been present in court. His legal team has argued that they were unable to review or copy the extensive case files and had not fully examined the case materials.
In December, Lee’s attorneys submitted a motion seeking the recusal of all three judges on the 11th Criminal Division, citing concerns about the court’s impartiality. They contended that the panel had already presided over the related case involving Lee Hwa-young, sentencing him to nine years and six months in prison, and that this had given rise to a presumption of guilt against Lee Jae-myung.
Under South Korean law, filing a recusal motion automatically halts court proceedings until a ruling is issued on the request.
On Feb. 11, the court rejected the motion, stating that the recusal had become moot due to personnel changes within the panel following a routine judicial reshuffle. A written notice of the decision was sent to Lee, but delivery failed due to what court officials described as “no one home and the door being closed.”
Following three failed delivery attempts, the court dispatched a judicial enforcement officer to Lee’s residence in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon. The officer visited the home three times but was likewise unable to deliver the ruling for the same reason. In total, the dismissal notice was not served on six occasions over the course of a month after the ruling was issued.
Some observers have suggested that the delay in delivery is the reason court proceedings could not resume. Because the dismissal ruling had not been formally served to the defendant, it had not yet taken legal effect, leaving the case at a standstill.
