"It is unnecessary and unimaginable to ask someone else to pay the costs that my campaign should bear."
On October 2, at the Seoul High Court, O Se-hoon, the Mayor of Seoul, became emotional during his closing statement. While he did not shed tears, his voice quivered as he denied any request for someone else to cover polling costs. This moment resonated with a reporter who has covered O for nearly 20 years, revealing the depth of his feelings on the matter.
The court's Criminal Division 7, presided over by Judge Koo Hoe-geun, held a hearing on the appeal of O Se-hoon, former Seoul Deputy Mayor Kang Cheol-won, and businessman Kim Han-jeong, all accused of violating political funding laws. The special prosecutor's team requested a sentence of 18 months in prison and a fine of 33 million won for O, and one year for both Kang and Kim, the same as the initial trial. O's defense team denied the allegations and claimed innocence. A ruling is expected on October 23.
O began by expressing gratitude to the court for carefully considering the opinions of the defendants and key evidence despite the tight schedule. He then reflected on his political beginnings, emphasizing his commitment to being a politician free from money and corruption.
"I consider the proud name given to me by the people, who appreciate my commitment to clean politics, to be more honorable than my fifth term as mayor," he stated.
The name he referred to was the 'O Se-hoon Law,' which he championed during his first term to enhance transparency in political funding. He argued that it was incompatible with his principles to ask a supporter to cover election costs, a notion he found unfathomable.
This statement reminded the reporter of O's declaration not to run in the 2004 general elections, where he advocated for the retirement of figures from the 5th and 6th Republics and chose to relinquish his own political power. He could not ask others to step down without doing so himself, demonstrating his commitment to political reform by sacrificing his own electoral prospects in a conservative stronghold.
However, a politician's past does not automatically erase current allegations. The motivations behind a politician's principles and the sacrifices made to uphold them are crucial when examining their actions. Why would someone who led efforts to enhance transparency in political funding compromise those principles? The court will need concrete evidence to answer that question. The weight of this inquiry was palpable during O's closing statement.
O directly refuted the special prosecutor's claims regarding his motivations for seeking polling data. He argued that feeling anxious after seeing unfavorable polling results during the party's primary would not align with his approach to campaigning.
He explained that if the campaign leader is swayed by individual polls, the entire campaign would be destabilized. He emphasized that the problematic polls occurred shortly after his announcement to run, and the situation could change significantly.
O also clarified his interactions with the individual in question, stating that he initially found it difficult to trust the person who approached him through former lawmaker Kim Young-sun, who claimed to be an advisor to then-acting chairman Kim Jong-in. He indicated that delegating the individual to Kang was a way to assess whether to sever ties. After the election, he noted that there was no communication, even casually.
He referenced new evidence submitted during the appeal, including phone calls between the individual and Kim, suggesting that the hostile and accusatory nature of those conversations could provide insight into how he viewed and treated the individual at the time. The issues raised in previous observations and his closing statement ultimately converged on the same questions: Did O actually request polling data? Did he ask someone else to cover the costs?
"I have never discussed the polling that the special prosecutor claims I requested, nor have I used its results for my campaign," he asserted firmly.
He denied all allegations regarding requests for polling, utilization, and cost coverage. He reiterated that it was impossible for him to ask someone else to pay costs that his campaign should bear. At this point, O's voice broke, revealing the deep hurt he felt at having his political beliefs questioned.
He then reflected on his conduct, admitting that he failed to sever ties with the individual when he first sensed something was amiss, allowing the situation to escalate to the courtroom. He acknowledged that his indecisiveness as a public figure created opportunities for accusations.
"No one else is to blame. It is all my fault. I am sorry," he stated.
While denying the charges, he accepted responsibility for causing public concern. This acknowledgment should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt regarding requests or funding. What he recognized was his failure to end the relationship with the individual sooner. He articulated the distinction between contesting allegations in court and taking responsibility before the public.
At the conclusion of his closing statement, O expressed a fear greater than losing his position.
"Your Honor, I am not afraid of losing my position as mayor," he declared.
What he feared was that a politician who has upheld principles would be tainted by the hatred and animosity of political brokers, disappointing the public. He expressed concern that his mission to enhance the prosperity of Seoul and the quality of life for its citizens might come to a halt. The terms 'hatred' and 'fabricated circumstances' reflect O's perspective on the case. The court will consider this appeal alongside the evidence and testimonies presented.
The reporter believes that the moment O became emotional should be viewed by the court as part of the context for his statements. This is not evidence of innocence but rather a reflection of the weight of life that cannot be conveyed through investigative records alone. The reporter has observed O Se-hoon's character and his appeal over the past 20 years, and it resonated deeply.
"I believe that hatred cannot overcome truth, and fabricated circumstances cannot obscure facts, and that judicial justice will prevail in this courtroom," he concluded, earnestly requesting a wise ruling based on the truth. The answer now lies with the court, which will determine the evidence regarding the principles O claims to uphold and the actions he denies having taken on October 23.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.