Home > Opinion > Columns

They are convinced of the president’s guilt

Published: 16 Apr. 2026, 00:02

Chin Jung-kwon

The author is a professor at Kwangwoon University.

I will say this plainly. I do not rule out the possibility that President Lee Jae Myung could be acquitted in the case involving alleged illegal transfers of funds to North Korea. From a common-sense perspective, it is difficult to believe he had no involvement. But proving that in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, is a separate matter.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong, second from left, sits after refusing to take the witness oath during a hearing on allegations of fabricated charges in the Ssangbangwool-North Korea remittance case, held by a parliamentary special committee investigating accusations of politically motivated prosecutions under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration at the National Assembly on April 14. [LIM HYUN-DONG]

Ironically, members of the Democratic Party (DP) appear to think differently. They seem convinced of his guilt. In their view, if the trial proceeds, a guilty verdict is inevitable. That is why, they argue, the trial must not take place. The only way to prevent it is by canceling the indictment, which critics say explains their aggressive efforts.

If prosecutors had fabricated evidence, the case would be easy to dismiss. Presenting proof to that effect would be enough to have it thrown out. Yet such evidence has not been produced. If it existed, former Gyeonggi Vice Gov. Lee Hwa-young could seek a retrial. The absence of such action suggests no clear proof of fabrication.

Critics argue that the outline of events is predictable. A parliamentary investigation is launched, followed by a bill to establish a special prosecutor. A clause is inserted allowing charges to be dropped if fabrication is found. The investigation identifies questionable grounds, which are used to justify canceling the indictment.

The number of political figures involved is broad, including DP leaders, lawmakers and senior officials. Their statements, critics say, resemble performances delivered with conviction. Media outlets aligned with the administration amplify these claims, shaping public perception.

A recording released by MBC has added to the controversy. Portions of remarks by attorney Seo Min-seok were removed, and he has declined to disclose them. Normally, if a party refuses disclosure, such material would not be reported. Even so, responses within the recording provide clues.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong is heard responding, “How could we treat him as an accessory?” and “How can we make Lee Hwa-young a secondary offender?” These remarks suggest that there may have been requests to classify Lee Hwa-young as an accomplice. Park indicated that doing so would require a confession identifying a principal offender.

In legal terms, the identification of an accomplice presupposes a principal. References in the recording imply that obtaining a confession identifying Lee Jae Myung as the principal was not feasible. Alternative approaches appear to have been discussed but rejected on legal grounds.

According to Park, testimony alone would not necessarily suffice. If the president disputed it, its evidentiary value could be weakened. Claims that testimony was influenced by prosecutorial promises could further undermine the case.

The issue of fabricated evidence has also been debated. Attorney Seo reportedly said that before intelligence documents emerged, he believed the alleged $8 million transfer would not result in a conviction. Additional materials, including meeting records submitted as evidence, have also been cited.

President Lee previously remarked in 2010 that North Korea had made requests to Gyeonggi that would require cooperation from other parties. The identity of those parties has been the subject of speculation.

Some controversial claims, including accounts of coercive tactics, have been dismissed by critics as implausible. They argue that such narratives rely on exaggerated scenarios.

Ultimately, even critics acknowledge that such arguments may not hold in court. The intensity of political efforts to prevent a trial, they suggest, reflects a strong belief about the outcome.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.