Appeals Court Finds Lawyer Guilty of Spreading Misinformation About President Lee Before 2022 Election

South Korean Court Convicts Lawyer for False Allegations Against President Lee

A Seoul High Court has overturned a lower court ruling and convicted lawyer Jang Yeong-ha for spreading false information about President Lee Jae Myung during the 2022 presidential election. The court handed down a one-year prison sentence, suspended for two years, finding Jang guilty of violating the Public Official Election Act.

The case stems from allegations Jang made in October 2021, just months before the hotly contested presidential election. During a press conference, Jang claimed that then-candidate Lee had accepted 2 billion won (approximately $1.4 million) in bribes while serving as the mayor of Seongnam. According to Jang, the bribes were exchanged for business favors.

“Jang held a press conference based solely on photos unrelated to the issue and statements from Park Cheol-min — a known member of the International Mafia gang — without securing concrete or objective evidence,” the court stated in its ruling.

The court was particularly critical of Jang’s professional background and his failure to verify information before making such serious accusations. “Even though the defendant is a legal professional, he abandoned his duty and spread falsehoods using provocative images,” the judges noted.

The timing of Jang’s allegations has drawn scrutiny. His claims came during a critical period in the election campaign and were later amplified when former People Power Party lawmaker Kim Yong-pan presented the same allegations during a parliamentary audit of Gyeonggi Province, where Lee had served as governor.

However, subsequent investigations revealed that the photos of cash bundles presented as evidence had been fabricated. The images had originally been posted by Park on social media for business promotion purposes and had no connection to the alleged bribery.

Despite this revelation, Jang proceeded with his press conference just two days after the fabrication became apparent, without conducting proper verification of the claims. This sequence of events heavily influenced the court’s decision.

“Considering the timing of the disclosure and other factors, the court finds that the defendant was at least aware the claims could be false when he made them public,” the ruling stated. “The lower court ruling of not guilty was based on a misunderstanding of facts and a misapplication of the law.”

The case highlights the contentious nature of South Korean political campaigns and the potential impact of misinformation on electoral outcomes. The court specifically mentioned the narrow margin in the presidential race, noting that “given that Lee narrowly lost the election, the impact on the presidential race cannot be dismissed.”

The Democratic Party, Lee’s political party, had filed a criminal complaint against Jang after the fabricated nature of the evidence became clear. They argued that the false allegations constituted a violation of election laws designed to prevent the spread of misinformation during campaigns.

In January, a lower court had acquitted Jang, ruling there was insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly spread false information. The High Court’s decision to overturn that ruling represents a significant development in how South Korean courts are addressing election-related misinformation cases.

Jang’s relationship with Park Cheol-min, the gang member whose testimony formed the basis of the allegations, has also come under scrutiny. Jang had served as legal counsel for Park, who is known to be a member of the criminal organization identified as the “International Mafia gang.”

The case underscores growing concerns about the intersection of legal professionals, political campaigns, and potential criminal elements in South Korean politics. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to hold individuals accountable for spreading unverified allegations that could influence electoral outcomes.

The ruling sends a strong message about the responsibilities of legal professionals when making public allegations, particularly during sensitive political periods such as presidential campaigns.