On Apr. 22, South Korea’s Supreme Court referred Democratic Party primary candidate Lee Jae-myung’s election law case—where he was acquitted in the second trial—to a full bench with all justices participating, and immediately began deliberations.
Both the decision to refer the case to the full bench of the Supreme Court and to begin proceedings on the same day are highly unusual, signaling a clear intention to fast-track the ruling. Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has repeatedly underscored the importance of timely trials.
Under S. Korean law, election-related trials must conclude within a year—six months for the first trial and three months each for the second and third. The law aims to prevent prolonged legal uncertainty from affecting electoral processes.
In Lee’s case, however, proceedings have already stretched over two years and six months just to complete the first and second trials.
The first trial court had found Lee guilty of violating the election law by making false claims during the last presidential race. One key issue was his claim that the Ministry of Land had effectively coerced local authorities into easing land use restrictions in Baekhyeon-dong.
The court ruled that the remark was false and handed him a prison sentence—one that, if upheld, would have cost him his parliamentary seat and disqualified him from running for president.
The appellate court, however, reached a different conclusion. It found that Lee’s comments were not deliberate lies but rather expressions of opinion or rhetorical exaggeration, and thus acquitted him. The stark contrast between the two rulings has left the public uncertain and divided.
Even if the Supreme Court moves swiftly to issue a final ruling before Jun. 3, its impact may be limited. A confirmation of the acquittal would remove legal ambiguity surrounding Lee’s candidacy.
But if the court overturns the acquittal and sends the case back for retrial—a remand that would effectively restart the process—the timeline would stretch again. In that scenario, a final ruling before the next presidential election would be unlikely, potentially reigniting fierce political and social debates over Lee’s eligibility.
Criticism has been directed at the judiciary for allowing the case to drag on. The judge in the first trial took 16 months to deliver a verdict, only to resign suddenly. The delay, coupled with the unexpected timing of the upcoming presidential election, has turned the case into a complex and politically sensitive issue.
Still, many hope the Supreme Court will do everything in its power to reach a conclusion without further delay. For those wearing the robe, they say, delivering timely justice is not just a procedural duty—it’s a responsibility owed to the public.
