Kim Jong-in's Testimony on Oh Se-hoon in Court

In criminal trials, the consistency of a person's actions with their motivations is a crucial factor. This is particularly relevant in the fourth appeal hearing on September 11 regarding Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon's alleged violation of the Political Fund Law, where Kim Jong-in, former chairman of the People Power Party, provided significant testimony.
 
Kim testified that on March 19, 2021, Oh approached him expressing a desire to withdraw from the mayoral race. He noted that Oh seemed to believe he could be pressured to step down by party members. This observation suggests that Oh was not someone who would go to great lengths to secure the mayoral position.
 
This testimony counters the prosecution's claims regarding Oh's motivations for the alleged crimes. To secretly commission a large, undisclosed opinion poll and allow a third party to cover the costs would typically require a strong desire to win. However, Oh had stated he would not run if Ahn Cheol-soo joined the People Power Party and even considered stepping down amid pressures for a unified candidate. This narrative contradicts the portrayal of him as someone desperate to secure the mayoral office.
 
As a first-term lawmaker, Oh had called for the resignation of party members associated with the 5th and 6th Republics in 2003 and declared he would not run in the following year's general election, taking responsibility himself. He also led reforms in the party's Political Reform Committee, resulting in changes to the Political Fund Law and the Public Official Election Act, which are now referred to as the 'Oh Se-hoon Law.' He applied these demands to himself.
 
Oh returned to politics in 2006 amid concerns that the party could not effectively challenge former Minister of Justice Kang Geum-sil from the Open Uri Party. Although it was an urgent measure, the process involved a primary election among three candidates rather than a strategic nomination. Oh won both the primary and the general election, marking the beginning of his reputation as a 'clean politician.'
 
In August 2011, he staked his mayoral position on a referendum regarding free school meals but resigned due to low voter turnout. This was an act of accountability, putting his position on the line for a principle. The fallout from his decision to withdraw from the free school meal program followed him, and there were speculations about his potential withdrawal from the 2021 by-election. His character of avoiding paths he deems unworthy is not a sudden image.
 
A scene remains in the reporter's memory. During a foot volleyball match at a Seoul city sports event, when our team was struggling, I suggested substituting in a skilled player. Oh replied, "Just play. We can win." He preferred to win with the established team rather than changing players.
 
Oh is not a politician who would take risks by spending large sums on dubious private opinion polls. He is known for being conservative with public and private expenses and is clear in his calculations. The claim that he entrusted a costly opinion poll to Myung Tae-kyun without a contract or reporting structure, allowing someone else to cover the payment, is inconsistent with his usual behavior.
 
Of course, a person's character and history alone cannot declare them innocent. The court must rigorously examine call records, messages, the timing of investigations, reporting channels, and the flow of funds. However, if objective evidence does not point to a single conclusion and undermines the credibility of key testimonies, then the defendant's motivations and behavior can also serve as material for reasonable doubt.
 
Kim denied claims that Myung Tae-kyun connected him with Oh Se-hoon and that he directed the opinion poll. He also stated that Myung had showcased their friendship to politically exploit him. What the court should focus on is not praise for Oh's 'integrity' but whether the prosecution's explanations align with his actions and the objective evidence.
 
A guilty verdict must stand on proof that excludes reasonable doubt, not on mere possibilities. Oh has amended laws to promote transparency in political funding, practiced the demands he made for resignations, and was willing to relinquish his mayoral position for principles, even considering stepping aside for a candidate who approached him. The assertion that Oh sought to gain the mayoralty through a large, covert opinion poll demands strict scrutiny. Knowing a person is not a bias; it is a matter of objectively measuring the gap between the allegations and the trajectory of a politician's life.