Lee Jae-myung must face his legal obligations, too
Published: 18 Dec. 2024, 19:46
The Seoul Central District Court has formally posted the appeals filing for Democratic Party (DP) Chairman Lee Jae-myung, allowing the Seoul High Court to proceed with deliberations on a case in which the lower court found Lee guilty of violating the Public Officials Elections Act. This electronic filing came after Lee’s camp allegedly avoided receiving the litigation documents, seemingly in an attempt to delay the legal process.
Last month, Lee was sentenced to a one-year prison term, suspended for two years, in the first trial. Should this verdict be upheld by higher courts, Lee would be barred from running in any election for the next 10 years. Both Lee and the prosecution have appealed the decision. However, notices issued by the Seoul District Court and two sets of litigation files sent by the Seoul High Court were returned, reportedly because Lee’s representatives did not accept them in person, causing further delays.
The Supreme Court mandates a 6-3-3 rule for election law violations, requiring rulings within six months in the first trial, with three months each allotted for appeals and final court decisions. Concurrently, the Constitutional Court must review the legislative impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk Yeol within 180 days. This creates the potential for the judgments on Lee and Yoon to overlap. Lee is suspected of stalling the trial to preserve his eligibility to run for the presidency in a snap election should the Constitutional Court uphold the impeachment.
Faced with these delays, the court opted to disclose the litigation process online, bypassing reliance on Lee’s cooperation. However, Lee may find other ways to obstruct the legal proceedings. Notably, he has already filed to disqualify a judge overseeing his bribery case, which involves allegations of an illegal corporate money transfer to North Korea. It is imperative for the court to act decisively to prevent further attempts to derail the legal timeline.
South Korea has already endured a troubling episode in which the presidency sought to destabilize the legislative and judiciary branches while suppressing civilian rights in response to abuses by an overbearing opposition party. This overreach was curtailed through swift actions by citizens and lawmakers. Meanwhile, President Yoon, who has pledged to face legal and political accountability, continues to resist summons from investigative authorities and has challenged search and raid warrants.
The DP and Lee are pressuring the Constitutional Court to expedite its deliberations on the impeachment. The public broadly supports hastening the trial to restore political and economic stability as swiftly as possible. However, for the opposition to maintain credibility in its argument, Lee must also confront his legal obligations without evasion. He owes the public an explanation of how his actions differ from Yoon’s, given their mutual attempts to bend the law to their advantage.
Last month, Lee was sentenced to a one-year prison term, suspended for two years, in the first trial. Should this verdict be upheld by higher courts, Lee would be barred from running in any election for the next 10 years. Both Lee and the prosecution have appealed the decision. However, notices issued by the Seoul District Court and two sets of litigation files sent by the Seoul High Court were returned, reportedly because Lee’s representatives did not accept them in person, causing further delays.
The Supreme Court mandates a 6-3-3 rule for election law violations, requiring rulings within six months in the first trial, with three months each allotted for appeals and final court decisions. Concurrently, the Constitutional Court must review the legislative impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk Yeol within 180 days. This creates the potential for the judgments on Lee and Yoon to overlap. Lee is suspected of stalling the trial to preserve his eligibility to run for the presidency in a snap election should the Constitutional Court uphold the impeachment.
Faced with these delays, the court opted to disclose the litigation process online, bypassing reliance on Lee’s cooperation. However, Lee may find other ways to obstruct the legal proceedings. Notably, he has already filed to disqualify a judge overseeing his bribery case, which involves allegations of an illegal corporate money transfer to North Korea. It is imperative for the court to act decisively to prevent further attempts to derail the legal timeline.
South Korea has already endured a troubling episode in which the presidency sought to destabilize the legislative and judiciary branches while suppressing civilian rights in response to abuses by an overbearing opposition party. This overreach was curtailed through swift actions by citizens and lawmakers. Meanwhile, President Yoon, who has pledged to face legal and political accountability, continues to resist summons from investigative authorities and has challenged search and raid warrants.
The DP and Lee are pressuring the Constitutional Court to expedite its deliberations on the impeachment. The public broadly supports hastening the trial to restore political and economic stability as swiftly as possible. However, for the opposition to maintain credibility in its argument, Lee must also confront his legal obligations without evasion. He owes the public an explanation of how his actions differ from Yoon’s, given their mutual attempts to bend the law to their advantage.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)