Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon Faces Sentencing in Political Fund Law Case

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon speaks to the media on June 17 at the Seoul Central District Court during the first trial regarding the 'Myung Tae-kyun public opinion survey allegations.' [Photo=Yonhap News]

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon's case regarding violations of political funding laws has concluded its final arguments, with only the sentencing remaining. On June 17, the special prosecutor's team requested a sentence of 18 months in prison and a fine of 33 million won during the hearing at the Seoul Central District Court.
- The Dominant Name in Final Arguments: Myung Tae-kyun
However, what captured attention in the courtroom was not the requested sentence but the prosecutor's method of proof. During the closing arguments, the special prosecutor mentioned the name 'Myung Tae-kyun' 57 times, presenting it as a key piece of evidence in the case. They cited the suspect interrogation records from the investigation phase 15 times and repeatedly referenced separate statements and cross-examination results.
- Reliance on Testimonies Over Physical Evidence
In contrast, there was a lack of direct evidence presented during the trial, such as phone records, text messages, or contracts indicating that Mayor Oh or former Seoul Deputy Mayor Kang Cheol-won directly commissioned the public opinion survey or instructed payment for it. This has led some legal experts to comment that the case's foundation relies significantly on Myung Tae-kyun's testimony rather than objective evidence.
Indeed, the special prosecutor's closing remarks frequently reiterated phrases like, "Myung Tae-kyun testified that..." and "This aligns with Myung Tae-kyun's testimony." Ultimately, the trial's focus has shifted from determining Mayor Oh's guilt or innocence to assessing how credible the court finds Myung Tae-kyun's statements.
- Conflicting Testimonies Raise Credibility Issues
The trial also saw considerable debate surrounding the credibility of testimonies. Kang Hye-kyung, who handled the public opinion survey, and Kim Tae-yeol, former head of the Future Korea Institute, provided statements in court that contradicted Myung's claims regarding who directed the manipulation and how costs were handled. Additionally, it was revealed that Myung had altered some of his statements during the investigation, prompting the defense to raise concerns about consistency and reliability.
In criminal cases, the testimonies of accomplices or interested parties can serve as crucial evidence. However, it is generally accepted that such testimonies must be verified against objective data for temporal and logical consistency.
- Forensic Evidence Raises 'Temporal Contradictions'
A focal point of the case is the so-called '3:30 PM commission claim.'

The core of the special prosecutor's allegations is that Mayor Oh called Myung Tae-kyun between 3:30 PM and 4 PM on January 22, 2022, to commission the public opinion survey for the first time.

However, digital forensic evidence presented during the trial indicated that the survey questionnaire had already been shared in a KakaoTalk chat room involving Myung Tae-kyun and Kang Hye-kyung at 2:20 PM on the same day.

For the questionnaire to be created and reviewed, prior planning and question formulation must have occurred. Therefore, the defense argues that the assertion that the 3:30 PM call was the starting point for the survey's creation raises chronological questions.
- Implications of 'Commission by Kim Jong-in' in KakaoTalk
Another piece of evidence regarding the commissioning party was revealed in court.

Kang Hye-kyung's KakaoTalk messages with an acquaintance reportedly contained references to conducting a public opinion survey in Seoul at the request of Kim Jong-in. Given that this record was created contemporaneously with the events in question, it is considered an objective piece of evidence for assessing the commissioning circumstances.

In contrast, the special prosecutor's case has been constructed primarily around Myung Tae-kyun's statements obtained during the subsequent investigation, rather than these records.
- The Verdict Will Depend on Evidence, Not Just Myung Tae-kyun
The court is faced with different types of evidence. One consists of testimonies from Myung Tae-kyun and other involved parties, while the other includes objective records such as KakaoTalk messages and digital forensic data.

The fundamental principles of criminal trials are based on the rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence. A guilty verdict must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution.

Thus, the key issue in the upcoming verdict will not only be whether Mayor Oh actually commissioned the public opinion survey but whether the testimonies presented by the special prosecutor meet the evidentiary standards required in a criminal trial when combined with objective data.

- What Will the Court Decide?
Throughout the final arguments, the name Myung Tae-kyun dominated the courtroom. However, in the sentencing hearing, the court is likely to scrutinize not just the testimony of a specific individual but the existence of objective evidence supporting that testimony.
This case is becoming a litmus test for how our criminal justice system determines the truth between testimonies and physical evidence, extending beyond political ramifications.

* This article has been translated by AI.