Unprecedented chaos triggered by Lee Jae-myung’s legal risk

Home > Opinion > Editorials

Unprecedented chaos triggered by Lee Jae-myung’s legal risk

Published: 02 May. 2025, 00:00

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Justices sit at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on May 1. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

The Supreme Court’s full bench, on Thursday, presided over by Chief Justice Jo Hee-de, overturned an appeals court’s acquittal of Democratic Party (DP) presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, who had been indicted on charges of making false statements in violation of the Public Official Election Act. The case has now been sent back to the Seoul High Court for retrial.

The Supreme Court established clear criteria for the dissemination of false information during an election campaign. The meaning of a candidate’s statement, it ruled, must be interpreted from the perspective of the average voter — not that of the candidate or the judiciary. Moreover, courts must assess whether a disputed statement concerns merely peripheral matters or whether it is significant enough to impair voters’ ability to make an informed choice. According to the majority opinion — 10 out of 12 justices — the following two statements made by Lee during the last presidential election campaign met the legal threshold for falsehood: it made it appear as if he had played golf with the late Kim Moon-ki, a former executive at Seongnam Development Corporation; and that the controversial rezoning of the Baekhyeon-dong site was the result of pressure from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

The ruling aligns more closely with that of the first trial court, which handed down a suspended one-year prison sentence, than with that of appeals court, which acquitted him. If Lee is handed a fine of 1 million won ($700) or more in the retrial and the verdict is upheld by the Supreme Court, he will lose his eligibility to run for public office.

Given the ruling, the Seoul High Court will likely deliver a guilty verdict. However, with the presidential election just one month away, it is unlikely that a final ruling will be handed down before the vote. This has led to an unprecedented situation in which the poll front-runner is campaigning under the cloud of a pending conviction.

Responsibility for this crisis lies squarely with Lee and the DP. Even after a lower court handed down a suspended prison sentence, the party failed to prepare an alternative and pressed forward with a “Lee-centric” strategy. When the appellate court returned an acquittal, Lee and the party lauded the judiciary, calling the verdict a “vindication of justice.” But on Wednesday, they abruptly changed tone. Chief spokesperson Cho Seung-rae condemned the Supreme Court for delivering a “rushed ruling” and “improperly intervening in the election.” With 10 justices having determined that Lee’s remarks were false, it is not the judiciary that deserves rebuke, but rather the candidate and his party, who should consider how to offer a sincere apology to the public. Instead, Lee responded by rejecting the decision, saying the verdict “goes completely against what I believe.”

The judiciary is not without fault. Under the Public Official Election Act, the law requires a ruling within six months in the first trial, and within three months each in the second and third trials. But Lee’s case took two years and two months to conclude at the district court alone. Though the Supreme Court has now moved quickly, the delay has nonetheless produced enormous political confusion.

Should Lee win the election, further legal and constitutional uncertainties will follow. Article 84 of the Constitution grants a sitting president immunity to criminal prosecution, but its application to cases where an indictment was issued before inauguration remains unclear. If the trial continues post-election, Lee could face the possibility of removal from office despite having won. The Supreme Court made no mention of Article 84 in its ruling, thereby leaving constitutional ambiguity unresolved and casting a shadow over the election. This legal uncertainty must be addressed swiftly in order to prevent deeper national division.

Responsibility also lies with former President Yoon Suk Yeol, whose unlawful imposition of martial law forced the presidential election to be moved up by two years. Had he not brought about his own downfall, the nation would not be facing a presidential vote amid such legal and political turmoil.

All that remains now is for the voters to make a wise choice. The public is left to choose the lesser evil between a candidate in legal jeopardy and one representing the party responsible for the martial law crisis. The political establishment and the judiciary must reckon fully with their role in this unprecedented moment.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.