[ad_1]
At Gyeonggi Governor Lee Jae-myung’s first trial for pre-trial detention, the lawyer said: “It took two years to escape the false and forced prosecution of the prosecution. It feels like fighting a ghost, “he said,” a case where the abuse of the right to prosecute was obvious. ” Governor Lee was accused of publishing false information regarding the forced admission of the brother-in-law in a broadcast debate of candidates for local elections and was sentenced to nullity for the elections. Subsequently, the Supreme Court was sentenced to leave the court without fault.
In a trial on the 21st day at the Suwon High Court 2nd Division of Criminal Hearing (Deputy Chief Judge Shim Dam), Governor Lee said: “The defendant suffered irreparable physical pain and the judicial law was in vain. . The prosecution did, but no one was responsible. “I hope you dismiss it as soon as possible.”
Governor Lee said of the brother-in-law’s forced hospitalization case: “It was a case where the question was whether the defendant’s brother had a mental illness and the prosecution filed a charge on the premise that there was no mental illness.” . “However, the prosecution actually had evidence against him that made them suspect Lee’s mental illness,” he said. “I was surprised that the prosecution made false charges.”
In response, the prosecution rebutted: “I agree with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that freedom of political expression should be guaranteed during the electoral process, but the comments in this case are extremely personal suspicions and comments on morals.”
The Supreme Court ruled that it is inevitable that there will be a limit to the clarity of expression when considering characteristics such as the speed and spontaneity of the broadcast debate, but the suspicion related to the ‘forced hospitalization of the brother-in-law’ has been widely raised since the past. Whenever a suspicion arose, she responded in the same way as the comments, and the same suspicion was raised before the debate, and it is judged that the same question was prepared ”.
Furthermore, “in the future, even if the candidate is passively consistent with his faults in the electoral debate for public office, he will not be punished for false acts. He noted that he will constantly say “not true” without responding to examine his morality and noted that the Supreme Court opinions of most opinions contradict previous Supreme Court precedents.
Subsequently, the prosecution asked the court to sentence a fine of 3 million won, which is a lower court ruling prior to repatriation. Elected public officials will be invalidated if they are sentenced to a fine of 1 million won or more for violating the Public Officials Election Act.
Governor Lee said in his closing statement: “I have nothing to say in particular.” The sentence will be held on the 16th of next month.
Governor Lee was charged with instructing the director of a health center and a psychiatrist to enter a psychiatric hospital in June 2012 while serving as mayor of Seongnam (interruption of the exercise of the right to abuse rights) and in a television debate held before the 2018 local elections. “I never tried to force my brother to be hospitalized,” he said, and at the same time, “the impersonation of the prosecutor was framed. He was also accused of making false comments in order to redeem the proceeds from the development of Daejang-dong (Election Law for Public Officials).
The first trial was acquitted of all of Governor Lee’s charges in May last year, but the second trial abolished the innocence of disclosing false facts related to the brother-in-law’s forced hospitalization in September last year and sentenced to a fine of 3 million won, equal to the nullity of the election. However, the Supreme Court returned the case to the Suwon Governance Law in July, stating that “the words spoken in the process of questioning and responding to the candidates, etc., participated in the debate, do not constitute false disclosures.” There is a high possibility that the decision of the appeal hearing will be accepted as it is even in the revocation review.
