South Korean prosecutors have appealed the appellate court’s acquittal of Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung in his election law violation case, filing the appeal just a day after the ruling. The prosecution, which had a week to challenge the verdict, moved swiftly, calling the decision “unacceptable.”
The case carries major political stakes, as it could determine Lee’s eligibility to run in the next presidential election. A lower court had convicted Lee of making false statements during his previous campaign, sentencing him to prison over remarks that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) had “threatened” officials to rezone land in Baekhyeon-dong. If upheld, the ruling would have cost him his parliamentary seat and barred him from running for president. However, the appellate court overturned the conviction, ruling that his comments were political rhetoric or exaggeration rather than deliberate falsehoods.
The stark contrast between the lower and appellate court rulings has caused public confusion, especially as the facts of the case remain unchanged. MOLIT officials and Seongnam city employees testified that no threats were made, yet the two courts arrived at opposite conclusions. With Lee’s political future at stake, a swift Supreme Court ruling is needed to resolve the legal uncertainty.
There is little reason for the Supreme Court to delay. The trial has already dragged on for two and a half years, with all evidence thoroughly examined. The only remaining issue is whether Lee’s remarks legally constitute false election statements. By law, the Supreme Court must rule on election law violations within three months. Furthermore, since Lee was acquitted at the appellate level, he has no right to appeal, reducing the likelihood of procedural delays. If prioritized, a final verdict could come within two months.
The court’s decision will ultimately hinge on either upholding Lee’s acquittal or overturning the appellate ruling. Typically, if the Supreme Court rejects an appellate decision, it sends the case back for retrial, prolonging the process. However, in cases where the facts are undisputed, the Supreme Court has the authority to issue a final ruling without remanding the case—a procedure known as reversal and self-rendering of judgment. While rare, such decisions have precedent.
If an early presidential election were to take place, Lee’s legal status could become a national flashpoint. To prevent political turmoil, the Supreme Court should either confirm his acquittal swiftly or exercise its authority to issue a final ruling. A prompt resolution would serve not only the public interest but also the best interests of both Lee and the Democratic Party.
