Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, who was sentenced to a term invalidating his election in the first trial over the "Myung Tae-gyun opinion poll cost proxy payment" case, was acquitted in the appeal trial. The primary reason given is that "the testimony of Myung Tae-gyun lacks credibility." However, given the clear situation in which Oh's supporter, Kim Han-jung, sent large sums of money to Myung on multiple occasions, questions remain as to whether the appellate court excessively dismissed objective facts and circumstantial evidence.

On the 23rd, the 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Goo Hoe-geun) acquitted Mayor Oh, who had been sentenced to a fine of 10 million won in the first trial on charges of violating the Political Funds Act. The special prosecutor Min Joong-ki had indicted Mayor Oh on charges of receiving opinion poll results 10 times from Myung ahead of the April 2021 Seoul mayoral by-election and having his supporter Kim pay 33 million won on his behalf. However, the appellate court ruled that it was difficult to recognize the credibility of Myung's testimony, citing that it mixed speculation and exaggeration and conflicted with the testimonies of others and objective facts. While emphasizing the criminal law principle that "if it is not proven with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, it must be judged in the defendant's favor," the court cannot help but ask whether it sufficiently reviewed objectively confirmed circumstantial evidence.

It is a clear fact that Kim paid 21 million won across three instances at a time when he had no particular personal relationship with Myung. The timing of the money transfer coincided with the period when Myung was intensively conducting opinion polls for Mayor Oh. It is also true that figures from Mayor Oh's camp discussed the design and execution of the opinion polls with Myung's side and received the survey results prior to their public release. Nevertheless, the appellate court took issue with contradictions in Myung's testimony, thereby dismissing objective facts, indirect evidence, and specific circumstances altogether. It instead concluded that Myung had "conducted the opinion polls for the purpose of flaunting his political influence." However, does it align with logic and common sense to completely ignore the probability that the events transpiring between Mayor Oh's camp, Kim Han-jung, and Myung's side took place under Mayor Oh's direction? Previously, the first trial court acknowledged the credibility of Myung's testimony to the extent that it was supported by objective data or specific circumstances, even while noting that "there are exaggerations in Myung's testimony."

In particular, illegal political fund cases, which are conducted covertly, often leave behind no direct evidence. If courts focus solely on flaws in testimony and fail to recognize the organic connection of indirect evidence—such as the timing and circumstances of money delivery, capital flows, the relationships between the parties, and their actions before and after—it will become even more difficult to punish politicians for violating the Political Funds Act in the future.

With the special prosecutor announcing plans to appeal immediately after the sentencing, the judgment of the Supreme Court is now all that remains. This case is simultaneously a criminal matter and a "political case" with a major impact on the upcoming presidential election landscape. The Supreme Court must deliver a rigorous ruling so as not to leave any shred of suspicion in the minds of the public.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]