[Edaily LEE JI-EUN Sung Gha-hyun Reporter] Former President Yoon Suk-yeol was sentenced to a suspended prison term in his appeal trial on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act. If the Supreme Court upholds this sentence, former President Yoon’s election victory will be invalidated, and the People Power Party will be required to return the full amount of election expenses—approximately 39.7 billion won—received from the National Election Commission. The ruling is expected to be finalized as early as the beginning of next year, in accordance with the expedited trial provisions under the Special Prosecutor Act.

On the 4th, the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 2-1 (High Court Judges Baek Seung-yeop, Hwang Seung-tae, and Kim Young-hyun) dismissed the appeal filed by former President Yoon, who had been indicted on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act. Consequently, the first-instance ruling—which imposed a sentence of one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years, a sentence that invalidates his election—was upheld.

Yoon’s Side Cites Precedent of President Lee’s ‘Forced Hospitalization of Older Brother’… Rejected by Appellate Court

Former President Yoon was indicted on charges of publicly disseminating false information for stating—during a debate hosted by the Kwanhoon Club in December 2021, while he was a presidential candidate—that he had never introduced a lawyer to former Yongsan Tax Office Director Yoon Woo-jin, and for stating in a media interview the following January that he had never met Buddhist monk Jeon Seong-bae, known as “Geonjin,” together with First Lady Kim Keon-hee.

The appellate court stated, “Considering the various circumstances revealed during the arguments in this case, it is difficult to conclude that the sentence imposed on the defendant by the lower court deviated from the scope of discretion and reasonableness or was so severe as to be unjust.”

The court also reached the same conclusions as the trial court on all points of contention. Former President Yoon’s legal team argued that the legal principles established by the 2020 Supreme Court en banc ruling—which found President Lee Jae-myung not guilty in the “forced hospitalization of his older brother” remarks case—should be applied. However, the appellate court stated, “The issue at hand concerns remarks made by the defendant during a question-and-answer session or interview with reporters, which is entirely different in nature from a candidate debate,” and affirmed that the legal principles applied by the trial court were valid. The 2021 Supreme Court plenary session ruling—which the trial court cited as the basis for its guilty verdict—primarily involved overturning a lower court’s acquittal and remanding the case for retrial regarding remarks made by President Lee in a 2021 television interview, while he was the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, in which he claimed he did not know Kim Moon-ki, the director of the Seongnam Urban Development Corporation, who was involved in the Daejang-dong development project.

Regarding Mr. Jeon’s remarks, both the first and second instance courts viewed the offense as serious, as it infringed upon voters’ right to choose.

The first-instance court noted, “The defendant completely denied having been introduced to this individual—with whom he had maintained a personal relationship since 2013 and from whom he had repeatedly sought advice regarding his personal and political circumstances—as merely a chance encounter during the election campaign,” adding, “Given that this was an issue of high public concern regarding the possibility that a candidate might rely on unofficial influence rather than rational judgment in governing the nation, the nature of the crime of disseminating false information is extremely grave.”

The appellate court rebuked the defendant, stating, “In an election to select the President—the highest-ranking official in the nation—the defendant, as a party-endorsed candidate, had a duty to provide information enabling voters to make sound judgments. By disseminating false information during the election process, the defendant infringed upon voters’ right to choose and undermined the fairness and procedural legitimacy of the election,” and added, “The defendant has consistently offered nothing but excuses right up to this trial.”

The Supreme Court review is a legal review… Provisions for expedited trials under the Special Prosecutor Act apply

The appellate trial is the final trial of fact, where the facts of the case are definitively determined. The Supreme Court conducts a legal review; therefore, in principle, it does not re-examine the facts but focuses on determining whether there were any issues with the lower court’s application of the law. Since the appellate court recognized both the publication of false facts and intent, the sentence will be finalized as is unless the claim of a misapplication of the law is accepted in the Supreme Court.

Under the Election Act, if a sentence of a fine of 1 million won or more is finalized, the election victory is invalidated. The sentence imposed on former President Yoon exceeds this threshold. The entity required to return the election expenses is not former President Yoon personally, but the People Power Party. The amount to be returned is the full 39.7 billion won that the National Election Commission has set aside.

The Special Prosecutor Act includes provisions on the principle of expedited trials, requiring the first-instance verdict to be handed down within six months and the second- and third-instance verdicts within three months each. Since the appellate proceedings have concluded, the Supreme Court’s ruling could be issued as early as early February of next year. However, as these provisions are typically interpreted as non-binding guidelines, the actual ruling may be delayed beyond this timeline.

Former President Yoon is the first former president to be sentenced to disqualification from office for violating the Election Act. However, even if the verdict becomes final, it does not invalidate the fact that he served as the 20th President of South Korea or the governing acts he carried out during his tenure.

If a sentence of imprisonment or a harsher penalty is finalized, he will not be eligible for the privileges provided under the Act on the Treatment of Former Presidents, such as a pension, secretaries, and office support. However, former President Yoon has already been removed from office via impeachment, so his eligibility for such privileges is currently limited.