The Seoul High Court announced on Apr. 1 that it will open the first hearing on main opposition Democratic Party (DP) leader Lee Jae-myung’s perjury subornation case on May 20. The hearing date comes six months after Lee was acquitted in the first trial. While there are no fixed rules, courts typically schedule the first trial within one to four weeks after the final preparatory hearing. In this case, however, the court pushed the date nearly 50 days later. Prosecutors reportedly told the bench they were available “as early as next week,” but the court responded that “other trials are already scheduled in April, and there seems to be no urgent reason to accelerate this one.” Courts can generally find room in the schedule to hold an additional hearing or two if they choose to. The delay reflects not a lack of capacity but a lack of willingness.
Delays may be expected in complex cases, but this one remains relatively straightforward. The charges stem from comments Lee made during the 2018 Gyeonggi Province gubernatorial election when he claimed he had been “falsely accused” in a past incident involving the impersonation of a prosecutor. In 2002, Lee was fined in connection with a case in which a television program staff member posed as a prosecutor during a phone interview with a public official.
Prosecutors later indicted Lee for disseminating false information during the 2018 campaign and alleged that he had urged a witness to commit perjury during trial proceedings. The witness in question admitted to lying under oath during the first trial. Only two witnesses have been approved for the upcoming hearings, which legal observers say could be concluded in a single day. Despite this, the court scheduled two separate trial dates and did not designate a date for sentencing—prompting criticism that the process is being intentionally drawn out.
In the initial trial, the court found the witness guilty of perjury but acquitted Lee, citing a lack of intent. Critics questioned how a proven instance of perjury could exist without someone having instigated it. “Who lies under oath in court without being told to?” one observer asked, calling the verdict difficult to accept.
If Lee is ultimately convicted of suborning perjury, the case would constitute judicial fraud—a serious offense with implications for his eligibility to run for president. Given the gravity of the charges, legal analysts say the court should deliver a ruling without delay. However, the appellate bench has shown little urgency in moving the case forward. The May 20 trial date could fall squarely in the middle of the campaign season, should an early presidential election be called. Observers noted that the court is likely aware of this possibility.
This is not the first time Lee’s cases have seen drawn-out proceedings. In a previous trial over alleged violations of election law, the presiding judge delayed sentencing for one year and four months before stepping down without issuing a verdict. As a result, a first-instance guilty ruling was issued only after two years and two months—later overturned in the appellate court under what many considered questionable reasoning.
A similar pattern emerged in Lee’s trial over the Daejang-dong development scandal, a major controversy involving allegations of corruption and favoritism in a large-scale apartment development project. The judge presiding over that case also left the bench without delivering a ruling after two years. These repeated delays make it seem that the judiciary is merely going through the motions when it comes to Lee’s legal proceedings.
