The Seoul High Court has overturned a lower court’s ruling in the election law violation case involving Lee Jae-myung, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party (DP), acquitting him in the second trial. The appellate panel reversed the earlier verdict that had convicted Lee of disseminating false information during the 2022 presidential campaign and sentenced him to prison.
In the initial ruling, the court found Lee had made false statements as a presidential candidate when he claimed he had “never played golf overseas” with the late Kim Moon-ki, then an executive at Seongnam Development Corp., and that a land-use upgrade for a construction site in Seongnam’s Baekhyeon-dong area in 2015–2016 had been carried out “due to threats from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.” The appellate court, however, concluded the remarks reflected Lee’s “subjective perception” or were “opinions rather than factual claims about specific acts,” and therefore did not meet the legal standard for falsehoods punishable under election law.
Kim Moon-ki was a key figure in the development project of Daejang-dong in Seongnam, while Lee served as mayor. After Kim took his own life, Lee claimed he “didn’t know who Kim was,” triggering widespread controversy. The denial was viewed as an attempt to distance himself from the corruption scandal surrounding the project. Critics argue the issue extends beyond mere perception, as it touches directly on Lee’s potential accountability in a major criminal case. Reducing the matter to “subjective awareness,” as the appellate court did, is seen by some as downplaying the seriousness of the situation.
During the campaign, Lee also asserted that the land-use change in Baekhyeon-dong occurred because the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport had “threatened to accuse the city of dereliction of duty” if it failed to approve the reclassification. However, official documents from Seongnam contained no indication that the ministry had applied such pressure. More than 20 government officials from both Seongnam and the ministry also testified that no such threat had been made. Citing this evidence, the first trial concluded that the decision had been made independently by the city and found Lee’s statement to be false.
In contrast, the appellate court found that Lee’s reference to a “threat” may have been an exaggeration and further determined that his comments could not be interpreted as addressing a specific act. On this basis, the panel ruled the statements were not punishable under election law, which only criminalizes false claims about a candidate’s own actions.
This interpretation has sparked concern: does it imply that public officials who authorize controversial decisions can later evade responsibility by falsely claiming they acted under nonexistent threats? Can they now deflect scrutiny by saying they were “pressured from above”? Critics argue the court’s reasoning approaches legal sophistry.
In a 2020 case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that convicted Choe Kang-wook, a former lawmaker of the DP, of violating election law. Choi had issued a fabricated internship certificate for the son of Cho Kuk, former head of the minor opposition Rebuilding Korea Party, and later claimed on a livestream that the son had “actually interned.” The court imposed a fine on Choi for making a false statement. Under the logic applied in Lee’s case, Choi’s comment would not qualify as a falsehood about his own conduct and, therefore, would not be subject to punishment. Critics say such reasoning defies common sense.
If this legal standard prevails, provisions in the election law prohibiting the dissemination of false information could become effectively toothless—turning future elections into a free-for-all of falsehoods and manipulation.
During the Moon Jae-in administration, the Supreme Court overturned an appellate ruling that had found Lee guilty of falsely asserting a debate during the Gyeonggi-do governor’s race that he had “not been involved” in the involuntary psychiatric commitment of his older brother—a verdict that had resulted in the annulment of his election win. The Supreme Court’s reversal paved the way for Lee’s presidential candidacy. At the time, critics criticized the decision as one that effectively allowed candidates to lie during televised debates without consequence. In another controversial case last November, a district court convicted the individual who committed perjury on Lee’s behalf, yet acquitted Lee himself, citing a lack of intent to instigate the false testimony. The court’s logic raised eyebrows. Are these rulings merely coincidences?
