Yoon’s Appeal Begins Amid Risk of Election Invalidating Sentence: “Can a 2- to 3-Second Answer Constitute Publishing False Information?”

[Financial News] Former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who received a ruling in the first trial severe enough to invalidate his election victory after being found guilty of violating the election law, argued for acquittal in the appeal. Yoon’s legal team maintained that neither his statement about “introducing” a lawyer nor his denial of a personal relationship with shaman Jeon Seong-bae—both of which were found guilty in the first trial—could reasonably be considered the publication of false information. The Special Prosecutor for Kim Keon-hee and Yoon’s lawyers plan to question former senior prosecutor Yoon Dae-jin as a key witness at the next hearing. They will also jointly replay video footage of the question-and-answer session with reporters after the event in question before continuing their arguments.
The Seoul High Court Criminal Division 2-1, presided over by Judge Kim Woo-su, held the first appellate hearing on the 8th for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was indicted on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act.
In the first trial, the court found Yoon guilty of allegations that arose during the presidential election, including claims that he introduced a lawyer to Woo Jin Yun, the former head of the Yongsan Tax Office, and his denial of a personal relationship with Jeon Seong-bae, also known as the “shaman.” Yoon was sentenced to one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years. If the sentence becomes final, his election as president would be invalidated, with unavoidable political repercussions including the People Power Party’s repayment of 39.7 billion won in presidential election subsidies.
Yoon’s lawyers pointed out, “If the original ruling is upheld, the issue of returning approximately 40 billion won in election expenses for the People Power Party will become a reality.” They added, “In the case of President Lee Jae Myung of the Democratic Party of Korea, who competed in the presidential election, the retrial after remand has remained stalled even now after the Supreme Court overturned and remanded the case concerning the publication of false information. Considering this, there would also be an issue of fairness.”
Yoon’s defense sought a full acquittal on the charges for which he was found guilty in the first trial. Yoon is accused of making a false statement during a Kwanhun Club debate in December 2021, when he was a presidential candidate, to the effect that he had never introduced a lawyer from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office of the Republic of Korea (SPO) to Woo Jin Yun, the elder brother of former senior prosecutor Yoon Dae-jin and former head of the Yongsan Tax Office.
He is also accused of saying in an interview at the launch ceremony of the Buddhist Leaders Forum on January 17, 2022, that he had never been introduced to Jeon Seong-bae by an official of the political party or met him together with Mrs. Kim.
Yoon Suk Yeol told the court directly, “If my answering, ‘That’s not it,’ for two or three seconds is considered the publication of false information, I question whether election campaigning itself would realistically be possible.” He added, “During the first trial, I thought the court would make a judgment after indicting me over something obvious without even questioning the relevant people, but I was very surprised when I saw the result.”
He particularly emphasized, “At the time, if I had been in a position where it was difficult to answer that question, I could simply have gotten into the car. I was in a situation where I could have avoided or cut off the question at any time, but when they asked whether there were any more questions, I went ahead and answered. What could I possibly have done to deceive the public?”
The Special Prosecutor for Kim Keon-hee, Special Counsel Min Joung-kie, countered that the first-instance ruling was justified, arguing that the allegations had already been reported in the media and that Yoon had anticipated the questions and prepared his answers.
The meaning of “introducing” a lawyer—whether it referred simply to making an introduction or to legal solicitation—also became a major issue in the appeal. The presiding judge noted, “In a 2012 interview with Weekly Donga, he used ‘introduce’ in its general sense, but at the 2019 confirmation hearing and the 2021 debate, the meaning changed to indicate that he had not made a ‘legal introduction’ under the Attorney-at-Law Act.” The judge added, “The key point in determining whether false information was published is how ordinary voters would have understood the statement that he ‘did not introduce’ the lawyer.”
The court plans to question former senior prosecutor Yoon Dae-jin as a witness and Yoon Suk Yeol as the defendant in succession, then immediately close the arguments and proceed to deliberation.
[email protected] Chang-hoon Lee Reporter