Home > Opinion > Editorials

Abide by the time limits for your rulings

Published: 25 Nov. 2024, 20:03

Democratic Party (DP) leader Lee Jae-myung has been found not guilty of subornation of perjury in the trial held in the Seoul Central District Court. The bench of three judges on Monday acquitted Lee of the charge, as the alleged subornation had been committed “within the legal boundaries of his rights to self-defense.” The court delivered its first ruling on the sensitive case following its first ruling on another volatile case involving Lee’s alleged violation of the Public Official Election Act in 2022, when he was a presidential candidate of the majority party.

On Nov. 14, different judges of the court sentenced the DP leader into one year in prison, suspended for two years, on the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act. Given the disparate rulings from the court, it’s difficult to foresee the results of Lee’s upcoming second or third trial. But we hope that Lee and the prosecutors fight their legal battles only based on evidence and legal logic — and respect the rulings of the court.

The subornation of perjury case dates back to May 2018, when Lee Jae-myung ran for the Gyeonggi governorship. In a television debate among candidates, Lee said he had been falsely accused — and convicted — of impersonating a prosecutor in the past. After judging that his comment could constitute the spreading of false information before elections, the prosecution indicted Lee of violating the Public Official Election Act.

The focus of contention in Monday’s trial was whether Lee really suborned Kim Jin-seong — a former aide of the late Seongnam mayor and a witness in Lee’s trial over his election law violation. But the bench concluded that the act of Lee talking over the phone with Kim and giving him advice on self-defense cannot constitute subornation of perjury. Instead, the bench sentenced Kim to a fine of 5 million won ($3,566) on the charge of giving false testimony.

However, the act of Lee’s avid supporters gathering before the court to pressure the bench is very inappropriate. Judges deliver rulings only based on evidence and legal logic. But such aberrant behavior outside the court endangers the integrity of our courts and democracy. We hope Lee dissuades them from taking such a nonsensical action. That’s what is demanded from the leader of the majority party.

We also hope the court minimizes all the uncertainties from Lee’s never-ending judicial risks by going through swift legal procedures. The election law mandates courts to hand out their rulings six months before their first trials, three months before their second trials and another three months before their third trials. The judiciary must abide by the law. But sadly, the district court delivered its first rulings on Lee’ two cases belatedly. The judiciary must abide by the time limits next time.