On August 28, the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 7 held the second hearing in the appeal of Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, who was fined 10 million won for violating the Political Fund Law in connection with the alleged funding of polling expenses for Myung Tae-kyun.
The focus of media coverage that day was on Myung, who testified as a witness. He reiterated his previous claim that "Mayor Oh directly requested the polling, and the costs were covered by Kim Han-jung, the chairman of a steel company." The court questioned Myung's credibility, noting that he had previously stated he had never been asked to conduct polling or heard about costs related to former President Yoon Suk-yeol's case, asking, "Why are your statements different in these two cases?"
This moment, where the court directly questioned the reliability of Myung's testimony, was a significant point in the hearing. However, what stood out more to reporters observing the hours of witness questioning was the nature of the money revealed by co-defendant Kim Han-jung and the circumstances of his meeting with Myung.
The core issue of the case is not simply whether Kim sent money to Myung. The fact that money was transferred is difficult to deny. The real question is whether Mayor Oh and former Seoul Deputy Mayor Kang Cheol-won requested polling from Myung and directed Kim to cover the costs.
Kim consistently denied this. He stated that he heard from former Deputy Mayor Kang that "a person from Changwon (Myung Tae-kyun) is causing disorder in Oh Se-hoon's campaign," and decided to meet with Myung himself. When Myung expressed dissatisfaction about not being treated well in the campaign, Kim explained that he wanted to soothe him and thought that if Myung could be of help in the election, he would bring him on board, which led to the money being given.
Kim likened Myung to someone who "came to sell lucky charms during the holidays but was chased away without selling anything," indicating that he intended to help someone who had been rejected by the campaign. He claimed that the initial 10 million won was not a payment for polling directed by Mayor Oh or former Deputy Mayor Kang, but rather money he gave on his own judgment to comfort and manage Myung.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that Kim and former Deputy Mayor Kang were not particularly close. If they had colluded closely to use Kim as a funding conduit, there should have been corresponding communication or discussions. However, the relationship between the two and Kim's testimony revealed a lack of such closeness.
In fact, there were indications that Kim and Myung later formed a separate personal relationship. When Myung said, "(Kim Han-jung) brother, I will also go to Jeju," Kim, though reluctant, did not stop him and even gave him 50,000 won. However, Myung was not alone; he was accompanied by several individuals, including former lawmaker Kim Young-sun, during the trip to Jeju, according to Kim's testimony in court.
During cross-examination, when Myung cited the Jeju trip to support his claims about his relationship with Kim, Kim countered, saying, "I was asked if it was okay to go on a trip, and that’s why he came; I did not invite him." If the payment for the polling was a one-time arrangement directed by someone, there would be no reason for Kim to continue to support Myung and his group after the election. Conversely, if Kim was independently managing and supporting Myung, the multiple payments and the Jeju visit could be explained as part of a continuous relationship.
Of course, Kim's statements alone do not automatically overturn the first trial's judgment. As a co-defendant, he also has a vested interest in reducing his criminal liability, and his testimony requires strict verification. He answered "I do not remember" regarding some timelines and communication details, and he faced scrutiny from the court for inconsistencies with his past statements.
Nevertheless, the impression received by reporters in the courtroom was that Kim was not merely reciting memorized statements but was explaining in his own words why he approached Myung and why he gave him money. Particularly, the process of first meeting Myung, the reasons for trying to comfort him after he was sidelined in the campaign, and the subsequent personal support and Jeju anecdote created a narrative that suggested the money was unrelated to "polling expenses directed by Oh Se-hoon," thereby opening the door for alternative interpretations.
The court's repeated focus on the initial relationship formation and the reasons for the money's payment after questioning both individuals indicates that they were not interested in peripheral political discussions or polling techniques, but rather the core of the case: why Kim met with Myung and under whose request and for what purpose the money was given.
In this regard, the questioning by the defense attorneys was somewhat lacking. The defense team for Mayor Oh spent considerable time attacking the inconsistencies in Myung's testimony but failed to clearly articulate the initial contact and the motivations for the money transfer between Kim and Myung into a coherent narrative that the court was seeking. Similarly, the questioning by the defense for former Deputy Mayor Kang did not effectively delve into the core issues. There seemed to be a significant gap between the answers the court was looking for and the questions posed by the defense attorneys.
Ironically, it was Kim's own testimony that filled in the gaps that the defense attorneys could not clarify. In this session, Kim did not shy away from admitting that he gave money to Myung while explaining that "it was not money given at the behest of Oh Se-hoon or Kang Cheol-won," framing his actions and relationships.
Criminal trials cannot conclude based solely on impressions or sincerity. They must be judged based on objective financial data, communication and message records, and the consistency of testimonies. However, whether the alleged "collusion for solicitation and payment" that underpins the violation of the Political Fund Law has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt remains a separate issue.
Reporters observing the hearing felt that Kim's testimony could be a significant variable that influences the appellate court's decision. Just as Myung's testimony wavered, Kim's independent motivation for providing the funds became more clearly articulated. If the appellate court finds this testimony credible, the possibility of overturning the first trial's guilty verdict against Mayor Oh appears substantial.
However, the final decision rests with the court. Additional questioning of Kim and related evidence investigations will continue in the next hearing. What was confirmed in court that day was not an acquittal, but rather a significant fracture that warrants reevaluation of the first trial's simplistic judgment of "polling expense payment."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.