법정에 선 전직 대통령, ‘대선 공작’ 프레임과 언론의 책임 사이에서 > K-wave Trends

Former President Yoon Seok-yeol attended the trial held at the 35th criminal settlement hearing of the Seoul Central District Court and made it clear that Newstapa's report targeting him was clearly malicious black propaganda. As defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act is a crime of impunity against will that requires the victim's intention to be punished, former President Yoon made it official in court that he intended to severely punish the defendants. Although he did not directly confirm the report, he emphasized that he had received a report from party insiders during the presidential election that the article had a serious negative impact on the election phase. In particular, he claimed that the defendants intentionally distorted the facts and spread the so-called “Matador” ahead of the presidential election, and did not back down from his stance that a strict legal judgment is needed as this is a case indicted by the prosecution.

The key point of this trial is whether former President Yoon covered up the charges of broker Cho Woo-hyung during the investigation of Busan Savings Bank during the Central Investigation Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in 2011. The defendant pointed out that the Supreme Prosecutor's Office's central investigation department intentionally neglected an issue that was fully aware of it based on the investigation records and circumstances at the time, and argued that this was a legitimate verification report by the media. On the other hand, former President Yoon refuted that the investigation at the time was focused on holding senior executives of Busan Savings Bank responsible for illegal loans, and that it was physically impossible to book all involved considering investigative resources and efficiency. He maintained the position that it is the prosecution's sole authority to set investigation points, and that the investigation at the time was the result of a legal review and legal review.

Another axis of conflict revealed during the trial is the scope of press freedom and the boundaries of responsibility that come with it. The defendant's lawyer raised the question of whether it is reasonable for a witness who does not know the details of the report to demand punishment, and strongly warned that freedom of the press could be curtailed. In response, former President Yoon acknowledged that freedom of the press is the foundation of democracy, but emphasized that the prerequisite for this must be ‘truthful reporting.’ In other words, the logic is that if the media forgets its public responsibility and manipulates or distorts facts for specific political purposes, it is no longer freedom of speech that must be protected, but is merely a tool for destroying democratic procedures.

The prosecution is focusing its investigative capabilities on this case, viewing it as a well-planned crime aimed at interfering in the presidential election, beyond simple defamation. The prosecution's key indictment is that Kim Man-bae, the majority shareholder of Hwacheon Dayyu, gave a large amount of money to former media union chairman Shin Shin-rim, and in return for the money, he conducted a false interview and distributed it through the media. Prosecutors believe that Newstapa reporters also conspired in this process and continued reporting with the intention of influencing the election. On the other hand, the defendants completely deny the allegations, saying that the money was only the cost of purchasing a book, not an interview, and that the contents of the report were also verified in the public interest, so it is expected that a fierce battle over the truth will continue in court.

Meanwhile, in the legal world, there has been a series of recent cases of allegations against political figures or celebrities and legal responses, such as the defamation case of Professor Mostan. Between conspiracy claims that advocate freedom of expression and judicial measures to block them, our society is faced with the task of sorting out what is truth amidst a flood of information. In particular, there is still a social consensus about the destructive power of information spread ahead of a major political event such as an election, and how the judiciary will restore the reputation damaged as a result. Former President Yoon's appearance as a witness this time will be an important touchstone that shows how our judicial system will establish political truth and the responsibility of the media.