Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon Faces Sentencing in Political Fund Law Case

 
Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon’s case regarding violations of political funding laws has concluded its hearings, with only the sentencing remaining. On June 17, the special prosecutor's team, led by Min Jung-ki, requested a sentence of one year and six months in prison along with a fine of 33 million won during the final hearing at the Seoul Central District Court.
 
- Myung Tae-kyun Dominates the Final Hearing
However, the focus in the courtroom was not on the requested sentence but rather on the prosecutor's method of proof. During the closing arguments, the name 'Myung Tae-kyun' was mentioned 57 times, serving as a central piece of evidence for the prosecution. The prosecutors cited the suspect interrogation records from the investigation phase 15 times and repeatedly referenced separate statements and cross-examination results.
 
- Reliance on Testimonies Over Physical Evidence
In contrast, there was a lack of direct evidence presented during the trial, such as phone records, text messages, or contracts indicating that Mayor Oh or former Seoul Deputy Mayor Kang Cheol-won directly commissioned the public opinion survey or instructed payment for it. This has led some legal experts to comment that the prosecution's case relies significantly on Myung Tae-kyun's testimony rather than objective evidence.

The prosecution's closing remarks frequently included phrases like, "Myung Tae-kyun testified that..." and "This aligns with Myung Tae-kyun's testimony." Ultimately, the core issue of this trial extends beyond Mayor Oh's guilt or innocence to how much credibility the court will assign to Myung Tae-kyun's statements.
 
- Conflicting Testimonies Raise Credibility Issues
Throughout the trial, there was considerable debate surrounding the credibility of the testimonies. Kang Hye-kyung, who handled the public opinion survey, and Kim Tae-yeol, former head of the Future Korea Research Institute, provided statements in court that contradicted Myung's claims regarding who directed the manipulation and how costs were handled. Additionally, it was revealed that Myung had altered some of his statements during the investigation, prompting the defense to focus on issues of consistency and reliability.
 
In criminal cases, the testimonies of co-conspirators or interested parties can serve as significant evidence. However, it is generally required that such testimonies be verified against objective data and checked for temporal and logical inconsistencies.
 
- Forensic Evidence Raises 'Temporal Inconsistencies'
A notable aspect of this case is the so-called '3:30 PM commission claim.' The prosecution's main assertion is that Mayor Oh called Myung between 3:30 PM and 4 PM on January 22, 2022, to commission the public opinion survey for the first time.
 
However, digital forensic evidence presented during the trial indicated that the survey questionnaire had already been shared in a KakaoTalk chatroom involving Myung and Kang at 2:20 PM that same day. For the questionnaire to be created and reviewed, prior planning and question formulation would have had to occur. Therefore, the defense argues that the claim of a commission call at 3:30 PM as the starting point for the survey creation raises chronological questions.
 
- KakaoTalk Messages Suggest 'Commission by Kim Jong-in'
Another piece of evidence regarding the commissioning party was revealed in court. A KakaoTalk message exchanged by Kang at the time reportedly stated that they were conducting a public opinion survey in Seoul at the request of Kim Jong-in. Given that this record was created contemporaneously with the events in question, it is considered an objective piece of evidence for assessing the commission's circumstances.
 
In contrast, the prosecution built its case primarily around Myung's statements obtained during the subsequent investigation.
 
- The Verdict Will Depend on Evidence, Not Just Myung Tae-kyun
The court is faced with two types of evidence: testimonies from Myung and other involved parties, and objective records such as KakaoTalk messages and digital forensic data.
 
The fundamental principles of criminal trials are the rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence. A guilty verdict must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution.
 
Thus, the key issue in the upcoming verdict will likely focus on whether the testimonies presented by the prosecution, combined with objective evidence, meet the evidentiary standards required in a criminal trial, rather than simply whether Mayor Oh actually commissioned the survey.
 
- What Will the Court Decide?
Throughout the final hearing, the name Myung Tae-kyun was dominant. However, in the sentencing hearing, the court will likely scrutinize the existence of objective evidence supporting those testimonies rather than focusing solely on the statements of any individual.
 
This case is becoming a litmus test for how our criminal justice system determines truth between testimonies and physical evidence, extending beyond political ramifications.