Seoul: Rep. Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea's (DPK) presidential candidate, faces a critical juncture in his political career following a recent Supreme Court ruling. On Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision that had previously cleared Lee of violating the Public Official Election Act. The top court found Lee guilty and remanded the case back to the Seoul High Court, which had earlier reversed the original district court's ruling. Initially, the district court had sentenced Lee to a one-year prison term, suspended for two years.
According to Yonhap News Agency, it remains uncertain whether the lower court will deliver a verdict before the June 3 presidential election. It is also unclear whether any ruling would be severe enough to disqualify Lee from running or force him out of the race. Under current law, any individual fined 1 million won or more is barred from seeking public office for 5 years and up to 10 years if they receive a prison sentence.
The stakes are high for Lee, who may face mounting internal pressure to resign and withdraw from the race. A challenging path lies ahead for both Lee and the DPK. Meanwhile, the People Power Party (PPP) has welcomed the Supreme Court's decision. Rep. Kweon Seong-dong, the PPP's floor leader, called it a "victory for common sense" and a step toward restoring justice.
The Supreme Court's latest decision sends mixed signals about the Korean judiciary. On one hand, it demonstrates a commitment to judicial fairness and accountability. On the other, it highlights the ongoing challenge of delayed justice. Despite the relatively straightforward nature of the case - false statements made during a campaign - it took the judiciary three years to issue a final verdict.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has publicly stated his commitment to the "6-3-3 rule" to expedite legal proceedings. The rule mandates that district courts should issue rulings within six months of filing, appellate courts within three months of transfer, and the Supreme Court within an additional three months. Yet, Lee's case far exceeded these timelines.
The delays were largely attributed to what many saw as deliberate stalling tactics by Lee and his legal team. Hearings were repeatedly rescheduled due to Lee claiming he hadn't secured legal representation. At one point, the Seoul High Court appointed a public defender without Lee's prior consent, frustrated by the ongoing delays. Lee later replaced the court-appointed lawyer with a high-profile legal team.
Observers believe these delays were strategically calculated. Under Article 84 of the Constitution, a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. If elected, Lee is thought to be banking on this immunity - and possibly working with the DPK-controlled National Assembly to revise laws in his favor - to avoid legal consequences while in office.
The Supreme Court has made efforts to end the practice of delayed justice, but the task remains incomplete. After the Seoul High Court cleared Rep. Lee of false statement charges on March 27, prosecutors immediately appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The case was transferred the following day.
Legal observers had initially predicted that the top court would be unlikely to deliver a verdict before the June 3 presidential election, given that Supreme Court rulings typically take around three months. However, the court issued its ruling just over a month after receiving the case - a pace that experts describe as unprecedented.
Since taking office as the 17th Chief Justice, Cho has repeatedly emphasized the need for swift and fair trials, especially in cases involving the Public Official Election Act. His push for the 6-3-3 rule reflects that commitment. In Lee's case, Chief Justice Cho appears to have acted decisively to uphold these principles.
Timely and impartial rulings are particularly important in election-related cases. Several former lawmakers charged under the Public Official Election Act have completed their terms without judicial consequences due to slow court proceedings. For instance, former DPK lawmaker Yoon Mi-hyang was indicted on embezzlement charges but served her full four-year term before receiving a suspended 18-month prison sentence - four years after her indictment. Had the final ruling come earlier, she would have lost her seat in the National Assembly. In her case, delayed justice effectively shielded her from accountability.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Lee's case highlights ongoing concerns about Korea's judicial system. Initially, the district court found Lee guilty, sentencing him to a one-year prison term suspended for two years. If that ruling had been upheld, he would have lost his seat in parliament and been barred from running for office - including the upcoming presidential election - for 10 years. However, the Seoul High Court reversed the decision, clearing him of all charges.
This inconsistency has fueled speculation that judicial outcomes may depend more on individual judges and their political leanings than on legal merits. As a result, questions are being raised about the rule of law and whether Korea's judiciary is truly grounded in fairness and transparency.