Legal challenges facing South Korea’s new President Lee Jae-myung

SEOUL - South Koreans voted for

Mr Lee Jae-myung as their next president

in the country's June 3 snap election to heal the wounds of a shock martial law declaration last December, but the liberal leader comes with his own legal baggage in the form of five criminal trials.

Democratic Party leader Lee has denied wrongdoing and while a president has immunity from most crimes, legal experts are unclear whether this applies to cases that start before the president takes office.

Here is a look at some legal cases Mr Lee is involved in.

Election law

South Korea’s Supreme Court ruled in May that Mr Lee had violated election law by publicly making “false statements” during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court after overturning an earlier ruling that cleared him.

The Seoul High Court scheduled its reconsideration of the case on June 18, pushing back until after the election a ruling that could have determined Mr Lee’s eligibility to run.

Violation of election law had been in the spotlight because if the appeals court finalises a guilty verdict in line with the Supreme Court's decision, Mr Lee would be barred from contesting elections for at least five years.

The Supreme Court ruling sparked criticism from his Democratic Party, which controls Parliament, leading to Bills being introduced that suggested the court and its chief justice engaged in abuse of jurisdiction and interference in the presidential election.

Allegations of corruption

This trial combines allegations of corruption such as bribery from four separate cases related to property development projects and licensing, during Mr Lee’s 2010-2018 stint as mayor of Seongnam city, which borders Seoul’s wealthy Gangnam district.

A major portion of the trial involves him allegedly colluding with a group of private property developers to help them rake in money from a 1.5 trillion won (S$1.4 billion) project, while inflicting losses on the city.

The trial at the Seoul Central District Court began in 2023 with around 200,000 pages of records submitted to the court, according to Yonhap News Agency.

A hearing planned in May was postponed to June 24, after the election.

Misuse of public funds, sending money to North Korea

These two trials are ongoing in the district court of Suwon, south of Seoul.

In one trial, prosecutors alleged that Mr Lee committed breach of trust by using public funds for personal expenses when he was governor of Gyeonggi province from 2018 to 2021, including parking an official car at his home and letting his wife use it regardless of the errand, plus purchases of food and payment for personal laundry with provincial funds.

In another trial, prosecutors alleged that Mr Lee was an accomplice in a former Gyeonggi province vice-governor's involvement in handing over money to North Korea in 2018, and indicted him for violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, as well as bribery of a third party.

Alleged subornation of perjury

In this case, also before the Seoul High Court, prosecutors alleged that Mr Lee induced a witness to lie under oath in court concerning another case in 2019 in which he was cleared.

A lower court had cleared Mr Lee of the charge, before prosecutors appealed. A hearing set for May 20 was postponed, court records showed.

What’s next?

The fate of the trials is unclear.

Article 84 of South Korea’s Constitution says a sitting president is “not subject to criminal prosecution while in office” for most crimes.

However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president is elected.

The Democratic Party in May introduced a Bill which suspends ongoing trials if the defendant is elected president.

However, some legal experts have noted that the Constitutional Court may be asked to rule on whether the Bill is unconstitutional, which would increase the political uncertainty.

The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where the trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May.

“The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election,” the statement said. REUTERS