On the 27th, Joo Jin-woo, a member of the People Power Party and head of its legal advisory committee, criticized the appellate court’s ruling on Lee Jae-myung, suggesting that it was influenced by a judge’s biased tendencies that led to a “grotesque legal interpretation.” He added that the Supreme Court has the authority to make a final ruling on this case if the evidence is sufficient, a process known as “paegija-pan” where the Supreme Court overturns a lower court’s decision and issues its own ruling directly.
Joo criticized the appellate court’s decision as a “ruling that is biased in favor of Lee Jae-myung,” explaining three reasons for his opinion. He argued that the Public Official Election Act is meant to guarantee voters’ rights, not to protect candidates. He also highlighted that there is an obligation for candidates to confirm and communicate objective facts, stressing the importance of distinguishing between photo enlargement and manipulation.
Joo cited a large number of comments left by citizens who felt deceived by Lee Jae-myung’s alleged lies and noted that a complex ruling from the appellate court could not conceal the public’s doubts. According to Joo, a ruling should be based on the impressions left on the electorate, and if someone has been misled, spreading false information should be punished under basic election principles.
He criticized the court’s ruling that deemed an enlarged golf photo as manipulation, arguing it was merely a rhetorical trick to downplay the issue. Joo claimed that the photo was presented to highlight a golf ball marker, and anyone could recognize it as an enlarged image.
Joo also questioned the court’s logic regarding a statement by Lee related to alleged coercive remarks by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, calling it “an unimaginable logic.” He asserted that the investigative sessions into Lee’s actions as mayor of Seongnam were designed to uncover the truth for the public.
Joo urged the prosecution to promptly appeal to the Supreme Court, as Lee cannot appeal due to a not guilty ruling. He emphasized that correcting legal interpretations doesn’t require much time, especially when there is ample evidence, calling for a swift decision from the Supreme Court.