Yoon Suk Yeol and Oh Se-hoon Acquitted in Political Fund Violation Cases

The political fund violation cases involving former President Yoon Suk Yeol and Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon have been overturned in appeals court, resulting in not guilty verdicts for both. The key issue in both cases was whether the provision of polling services and the payment of costs could be recognized as actions based on the politicians' own requests and agreements. In Oh's case, the credibility of Myung's testimony and the proof of payment requests were central, while in Yoon's case, the question was whether the assistance received constituted a property benefit.

According to legal sources on the 23rd, the 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court, led by Judge Koo Hoe-geun, overturned the original ruling that imposed a fine of 10 million won and a confiscation of 21 million won against Mayor Oh for violating the Political Fund Law, declaring him not guilty. This follows the same court's reversal of a two-year prison sentence for former President Yoon on the 7th, maintaining that there was no guilty verdict in another case related to Myung's polling.

The core issue that divided the first and second trials in Oh's case was whether some of Myung's testimony could be accepted as evidence of guilt.

The first trial recognized that Oh had commissioned five out of ten polling instances included in the charges and had a supporter, Kim Han-jeong, cover the costs of 21 million won. While the court did not fully trust Myung's testimony, it found credible parts that aligned with objective circumstances regarding the contact and investigation process. Based on this, the court concluded that Oh and former Seoul Deputy Mayor Kang Cheol-won conspired to receive political funds equivalent to that amount.

However, the appeals court rejected this evaluation of evidence. The court stated, "The only direct evidence regarding the key issue of this case is Myung's testimony," but pointed out that the testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by numerous objective circumstances. It emphasized that there was insufficient basis to trust only parts of Myung's testimony or to present other supporting evidence.

The court noted that the fact that Kim paid the money and whether that payment was due to Oh's request or payment request needed to be proven separately. It concluded that there remained reasonable doubt regarding Oh's involvement based solely on the flow of money and fragmented circumstances.

The debate over the credibility of Myung's testimony continued in the appeals court, including recorded phone conversations. Oh's side denied involvement based on statements in the calls, such as "Oh Se-hoon is not aware." In contrast, the special prosecutor argued that the statement pertained to a strategy for unifying opposition candidates rather than payment for polling. The existence of the recordings, as well as the context of the statements and their consistency with other evidence, were also points of contention.

Ultimately, the appeals court concluded that it did not permit the payment for polling services itself but found that the facts of the commissioned request and payment were not sufficiently proven. The court stressed that even if there were some ambiguous circumstances or doubts about guilt, if strict proof was not established, it should be judged in favor of the defendant.

In the case involving former President Yoon, the appeals court rejected the agreement recognized in the first trial. However, unlike Oh's case, which involved a supporter paying costs, the legal nature of Myung's provision of polling services for free became a point of contention.

The first trial found Yoon guilty for 14 out of 58 instances of free provision, concluding that there was a sequential and implicit agreement based on messages between Kim Geon-hee and Myung, attributing approximately 27.92 million won in property benefits to the Yoon couple.

In contrast, the appeals court evaluated the assistance provided by Myung as overall political support during the presidential campaign, including advice on public sentiment and introductions to influential politicians. It determined that the polling results were merely supporting materials for that advice and could not be viewed as a donation of property benefits that could be quantified in monetary terms.

The court also found that the commission and negotiation regarding the conduct of the survey and its free provision were not proven. It noted that Myung independently decided whether to conduct the survey, only partially shared the results with the Yoon couple, and provided them to other politicians as well. Therefore, it concluded that there was no intent to receive political funds.

Both rulings align in that mere interaction or assistance from Myung does not constitute illegal political fund acceptance. However, the reasoning behind the lack of proof in Oh's case and the determination of property benefits in Yoon's case cannot be conflated. The former examined whether there were requests for surveys and payment, while the latter considered the agreement for free provision and the nature of the benefits provided.

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on the scope of political donations. The special prosecutor has appealed the not guilty verdict in Yoon's case. The case involving Kim Geon-hee, who was also acquitted in both trials regarding the free provision of polling, is currently under review by the Supreme Court's full bench. The full bench conducted its second hearing on the 22nd, with the main issue being whether conducting polls or providing results constitutes a prohibited donation under the Political Fund Law.

Regardless of the legal standards set by the Supreme Court, each case requires specific evidence to support the politicians' requests and agreements. Even in the same 'Myung Tae-kyun polling' case, the differing structures of cost burdens and evidence relationships necessitate distinct evaluations.