When Oh Se-hoon was found guilty in the first trial, my immediate thought was, "Could he really do that?" There seemed to be a significant gap between his long-standing behavior and the verdict. However, belief in a person and the court's judgment are separate matters. I wanted to confirm that gap, which is why I attended the appeal hearings.
I paid close attention to the questions from Judge Koo Hwa-geun and Chief Judge Park Joo-young, as well as the testimonies from Myung Tae-kyun, Kim Han-jung, and Kim Jong-in, along with the defense attorneys' cross-examinations.
The sharp questioning from Kim Han-jung's attorney and the factual clarifications from Kim Jong-in were particularly striking. However, the most memorable moment was the court's questioning directed at Myung Tae-kyun.
As the questions continued, it became clear what the trial was trying to ascertain: whether statements were consistent, whether they contradicted objective evidence, and whether facts were mixed with speculation. At times, it felt as though the court was pressing for false testimony, though that was merely my impression as an observer.
The court's judgment ultimately had to be confirmed through evidence and reasoning. Throughout the proceedings, I found it hard to take my eyes off Oh Se-hoon, who appeared to have a firm expression of someone who believes in their innocence. However, during his final statement, he showed signs of emotion. Perhaps the weight of the long trial and feelings of injustice overwhelmed him. While I cannot definitively know his inner thoughts, in that moment, the passage of time he had endured seemed more apparent than a politician's skilled rhetoric.
This reminded me of a story he shared long ago. During his time as a lawyer, he gained recognition through a sunlight rights lawsuit and became a public figure through television appearances. He recounted an experience visiting a market in Daegu, where he met merchants who recognized him and asked for photos and autographs. They reminded him of his mother, who sold goods at Namdaemun Market.
In that moment of realizing his fame, he resolved to be cautious in his actions, feeling he should not live in a way that would bring shame before those who recognized him. His explanation of wanting to avoid the wrong path resonated with that story.
The popularity he gained as a broadcaster translated into public responsibility once he entered politics. Throughout my observations of Oh Se-hoon, I noted his tendency to constantly regulate himself. At times, this felt frustrating, as there were moments when I wished he would act more boldly in political contests.
This was evident when he announced he would not run in the upcoming presidential election. I even scoffed at the idea of someone who had never declared their candidacy announcing their withdrawal. Yet, I still wonder if the election's dynamics might have changed had he chosen to run. However, no one can guarantee the outcome of an election that never occurred. Looking back, I realize that the caution I found frustrating was likely tied to the standards he set for himself.
On October 23, at around 1:50 PM, Oh Se-hoon arrived at the Seoul High Court ahead of the appeal ruling. As reporters bombarded him with questions, he responded, "You seem nervous," turning the question back on them. He expressed confidence, stating he was not nervous about the trial, which was evident in his determined stride up the stairs.
Perhaps it was I who was more anxious as I observed him. His composure and confident steps suggested he had substantial faith in his innocence and the facts he had presented during the trial. However, the final judgment remained uncertain, still to be determined within the courtroom.
At 2 PM, the ruling commenced. The court focused on two key issues: whether Oh Se-hoon had commissioned Myung Tae-kyun for polling and whether he had asked Kim Han-jung to cover the costs. The only direct evidence regarding these claims was Myung Tae-kyun's testimony.
The reasoning behind the ruling echoed the questions I had heard during the trial. Myung Tae-kyun's testimony contained elements that blurred the lines between direct experience and speculation, and there were inconsistencies with objective circumstances and statements from others. The claim that Oh Se-hoon had tearfully requested polling from someone he had just met was also deemed difficult to accept.
The court revisited the first trial's acceptance of some testimonies as credible, noting that if only parts of a statement are to be trusted, there must be sufficient grounds or corroborating evidence for that trust. The appeal court found such proof lacking. The mere fact that polling results were shared and payments were made did not suffice to confirm Oh Se-hoon's commission or request for payment.
The court did not assert that there was no doubt regarding guilt. Instead, it clarified the boundary between suspicion and proof. The prosecution must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and that responsibility lies with them.
Finally, the ruling was read: "We overturn the guilty portions of the original ruling. The defendants are each found not guilty." This was the statement I had been waiting for. Despite my personal beliefs about him, the court had reviewed the evidence and rendered a not guilty verdict. I could not hide my relief while remembering that difference.
At 2:20 PM, Oh Se-hoon's first words before reporters were unexpectedly an apology. "First, I sincerely apologize to the public." He acknowledged the concern he caused by appearing before the prosecution and the court, promising to act more cautiously in the future. He expressed gratitude to the citizens of Seoul who believed in him and gave him another chance to work. He added that he was able to endure and continue working thanks to those who did not withdraw their trust and provided him with courage and hope.
Later on Facebook, he stated, "Though late, the truth has ultimately found its place. I believe in the principle of justice." He pledged to approach his public duties with greater rigor and to repay the trust of citizens with results. He committed to creating a 'quality of life special city' in Seoul, where each person's life is happy.
To me, his words echoed the commitment he had made long ago before the market merchants. The desire to live without shame before those who recognize him has now transformed into a promise to take responsibility for the lives of citizens who have trusted and chosen him.
Thus, I titled this account 'Oh Se-hoon's Commitment and Promise.' The commitment is directed at himself—a vow for greater caution and discipline. The promise is directed at the citizens—a responsibility to repay those who believed in him with work and results.
The not guilty verdict lifted a heavy burden from him. However, outside the courtroom that day, he accepted another responsibility with his words. I listened with relief to those words. Now, I will observe how that commitment and promise are put into practice in the realm of governance.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.