The appellate court handling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) leader Lee Jae-myung’s Public Official Election Act violation case announced on Jan. 23 that it plans to conclude the trial by Feb. 26. Witness examinations are expected to finish by Feb. 19, with closing arguments scheduled for later that month. This timeline suggests a verdict could be issued by late March, as courts typically hand down rulings about a month after the final hearing—an expedited timeline.
Lee received a suspended prison sentence in his first trial, which, if upheld on appeal, would bar him from running in the next presidential election. Ahead of the appeals trial, he requested a constitutional review of the Election Act’s false information provision—a move widely viewed as a delay tactic, given the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the provision four years ago.
If accepted, the referral would pause the case until the Constitutional Court issues a decision. However, the appeals court signaled its intention to prevent delays, setting clear trial dates and rejecting most of Lee’s 13 proposed witnesses.
The Public Official Election Act requires first trials in such cases to conclude within six months and appeals trials within three months, aiming to prevent unqualified individuals from holding public office. However, Lee’s first trial stretched over two years and two months, violating the statute’s timeframe.
Although the appeals court intends to expedite the case, it will still exceed the legal deadline of Feb. 15 due to delays caused by Lee avoiding the delivery of court documents, which postponed proceedings.
Lee’s attempts to delay the trial may be tied to hopes that the Constitutional Court could impeach President Yoon Suk-yeol, triggering an early presidential election before his appeals process concludes. However, if such an election takes place and Lee is elected, it could fuel public doubts about the election’s legitimacy and lead to social unrest—an outcome that would be harmful to both Lee and the country.
The appellate court must proceed as swiftly as possible, while the Supreme Court must adhere to the three-month deadline for its ruling. Lee, for his part, should cease obstructionist tactics that undermine the judicial process.