[Edaily Reporter LEE JI-EUN ] In the case involving Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, who was indicted by Special Prosecutor Min Jung-ki’s team on allegations of paying for opinion polls, the appellate court overturned the first-instance guilty verdict in its entirety. Although the special prosecution team had sought a prison sentence, the court ruled that it was difficult to accept the credibility of the testimony of “political broker” Myung Tae-kyun, which served as key evidence.

The 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Koo Hoe-geun) acquitted Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, who was charged with violating the Political Funds Act, on that day. The court overturned all the convictions handed down by the first-instance court and dismissed the special prosecution team’s appeal regarding the acquittals. Former Seoul Vice Mayor for Political Affairs Kang Cheol-won, a close aide to Mayor Oh, and his financial backer Kim Han-jeong, who were indicted alongside him, were also acquitted.

The special prosecutor’s office indicted Mayor Oh last December, alleging that, ahead of the April 7, 2021, Seoul mayoral by-election, he commissioned Mr. Myung to conduct opinion polls and arranged for Mr. Kim to pay part of the costs through former Deputy Mayor Kang. The first-instance court found Mayor Oh guilty of five out of ten opinion polls and 21 million won of the payments made by Mr. Kim, sentencing him to a fine of 10 million won. The special counsel sought a prison term of one year and six months in both the first and second trials.

The appellate court ruled that the special counsel’s team had failed to sufficiently prove the credibility of the key testimony supporting the charges. In particular, the court noted that only Mr. Myung’s testimony constituted “direct evidence” regarding the core issues, stating that it was “difficult to accept it at face value as a whole.”

Specifically, regarding Mr. Myung’s testimony, the court pointed out: △ circumstances making it difficult to clearly distinguish between facts based on direct experience and those based on mere speculation or exaggeration; △ his tendency to repeatedly offer only peripheral explanations or claim he could not recall details regarding matters unfavorable to himself; △ a tendency to reinterpret his previous statements in a manner favorable to himself; and △ numerous instances where his statements conflicted with objectively evident circumstances or the testimonies of other relevant parties.

The court noted, “The crimes, perpetrators, timing of the crimes, and specific details of the offenses set forth by the special prosecutor in the indictment are all subject to strict proof based on evidence,” adding, “It is difficult to attribute credibility to Mr. Myung’s testimony, which is the sole direct evidence, and the fragmentary facts established by the remaining evidence are insufficient to substantiate the charges in this case; rather, numerous circumstances contradicting his account have been established during the trial.”

Furthermore, the court noted, “In a criminal trial, the finding of criminal facts must be based on rigorous evidence possessing probative value sufficient to convince the judge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proving guilt naturally rests with the prosecutor,” “If the prosecution’s evidence does not sufficiently reach the level required to establish such certainty, then even if the defendant’s claims or explanations contain some contradictions or inconsistencies that raise suspicion of guilt, the judgment must ultimately be made in favor of the defendant,” he explained.

Immediately after the verdict, Special Prosecutor Park No-su met with reporters and said, “This is a very disappointing ruling,” adding, “The court based its judgment primarily on whether or not Mr. Myung’s testimony was credible, but when we indicted him on the grounds of guilt, we did not do so solely based on his testimony.”

The evidence presented by the special counsel included: △ a transcript of a conversation in which a member of Mayor Oh’s campaign team mentioned that the results of a survey commissioned by the campaign were unfavorable and had become a problem; △ a transcript of a conversation between Mr. Kim and Ms. Kang Hye-kyung in which Mr. Kim acknowledged that he first met Mr. Myung at the campaign’s suggestion; and △ notes from a meeting with a lawyer sent by Mayor Oh.

Deputy Special Prosecutor Park said, “The court made no mention of this decisive evidence,” adding, “It is difficult to understand how the court assessed the value of other decisive evidence and arrived at this not-guilty verdict.” He added, “We will file an appeal to correct this error.”

Previously, on the 7th, the 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court overturned the first-instance guilty verdict and acquitted former President Yoon Suk-yeol in the appeal trial regarding the case involving the receipt of a free public opinion poll from Myung Tae-gyun. Both the first and second trials also found First Lady Kim Keon-hee not guilty on the same allegations, and the case is currently awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court’s Full Bench. Although all these cases were prosecuted by Special Prosecutor Min Jung-ki’s team, the case involving Mayor Oh differs in that the payment of expenses by a third party is the key issue.

If a fine of 1 million won or more is finalized for a violation of the Political Funds Act, an elected official loses their position. With this ruling, Mayor Oh has avoided the risk of losing his mayoral seat, but since the special counsel has announced plans to file an appeal, the final decision will be made by the Supreme Court.