Legal challenges facing South Korea's incoming President Lee Jae-myung
SEOUL, June 4 (Reuters) - South Koreans voted in 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 in December, but the liberal leader comes with his own legal baggage in the form of five different 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 started before they took office.
Here are some aspects of the trials the president is involved in.
South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May that 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 clearing him.
The Seoul High Court decided to schedule its reconsideration of the case for June 18, pushing back a ruling that could determine his eligibility to run until after the election.
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, Lee would be barred from contesting elections for at least five years.
The Supreme Court ruling sparked criticism from Lee's 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.
This trial combines allegations of corruption such as bribery from four separate cases related to property development projects and licensing, during Lee's 2010-2018 stint as mayor of Seongnam City bordering Seoul's wealthy Gangnam district.
A major portion of the trial involves Lee allegedly colluding with a group of private property developers to help them rake in money from a 1.5 trillion won ($1.08 billion) project, while inflicting losses on the city.
The trial at Seoul Central District Court began in 2023 with around 200,000 pages of records submitted to the court, according to the Yonhap News Agency. A hearing planned in May was postponed to June 24, after the election.
These two trials are ongoing at Suwon District Court, south of Seoul.
In one, prosecutors alleged that Lee committed breach of trust by using public funds for personal expenses when he was governor of Gyeonggi province in 2018-2021, 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, prosecutors alleged that 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.
A case is also before the Seoul High Court, in which prosecutors alleged 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 Lee of the charge, before prosecutors appealed. A hearing set for May 20 was postponed, court records showed.
The fate of the trials is unclear.
South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, 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 was elected.
The Democratic Party introduced to committee in May a bill which suspends ongoing trials if the defendant is elected president.
However, some legal experts have noted the Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, which would increase political uncertainties.
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.
($1 = 1,382.6800 won)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
What comes next in the Trump-Musk feud: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Kristen Welker dives into what comes next in the breakup between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Plus, our Capitol Hill team examines the senators who could make or break Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' And Shannon Pettypiece answers this week's reader question on the U.S.-China trade war. Before we dive into all that, two bits of breaking news this Friday afternoon: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man whose erroneous deportation to El Salvador gave way to a protracted battle over due process, has been returned to the U.S. to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee. The Supreme Court allowed members of the Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. — Adam Wollner What's next in the feud between Trump and Musk? By Kristen Welker The feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump erupted yesterday in an epic clash between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful man — and it's not clear yet where the confrontation will go next. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told me this morning that there are 'no plans' for a phone call between Trump and Musk today, despite at least one report that it was a possibility. But just because there's nothing on the books doesn't mean the two men won't have an impromptu call. After all, Trump has a personal cellphone where he often talks to everyone from world leaders to reporters. And one administration official told me anything can happen, and they'd like to 'de-escalate a very unfortunate situation.' While the White House may be looking to turn down the temperature, some of the president's allies were quick to go after Musk. Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House adviser, told me the president should 'pull every contract associated with Elon Musk' and start major investigations 'immediately.' Bannon also said, 'Thus spake the ketamine,' in a sign that some of Trump's allies are zeroing in on Musk's alleged drug use. (Musk has said he took ketamine to treat depression.) At stake in all of this is the future of Trump's signature legislation, which includes tax cut extensions, an elimination of tax on tips and overtime, and cuts and changes to federal programs including Medicaid and food stamps. Musk has trashed the 'big, beautiful bill,' arguing that it would balloon the country's debt. Sources from the White House and on Capitol Hill have told me that while Musk's opposition might embolden Republican senators who are already opposed to the measure, Musk is not flipping any more votes to the 'no' column at this point. I'm also told that if these senators had to choose between Trump and Musk, they'd choose Trump every time. We'll talk more about the next steps for Trump's domestic policy bill on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday, with exclusive interviews with Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla. and Cory Booker, D-N.J. Behind the scenes: Trump's team is taking the feud seriously: White House aides scrambled into at least two closed-door meetings Thursday to strategize about whether and how to respond to Musk's social media barrage. Vice President JD Vance was with Trump on Thursday when the tweets began and they spoke multiple times in the afternoon, according to a person familiar with the day's events. Trump encouraged Vance to be diplomatic about Musk if asked about him, the person said. Meanwhile, Trump is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla that he purchased in March, according to a senior White House official. By Sahil Kapur, Julie Tsirkin and Frank Thorp V Amid the back-and-forth between Donald Trump and Elon Musk this week, Senate Republican leaders have been juggling a host of competing demands as they prepare to take up — and make changes to — the House-passed 'big, beautiful bill.' They can ultimately afford to lose just three GOP votes on the Senate floor, assuming all Democrats oppose the package as expected. Here are the senators who could make or break the bill: Rand Paul: He's the only Republican senator who has voted against this legislation every step of the way. He has blasted the spike in military spending, the huge increase in deficits and, in particular, the $5 trillion debt limit hike. Paul does support a key part of the package — an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts — but he wants to offset it with trillions of dollars in additional spending cuts, on which the GOP has no hope of finding consensus. Susan Collins: The Maine senator is the sole Republican to represent a state that Democrats consistently win at the presidential level. And she faces re-election this year. Her trajectory has been revealing, from supporting the initial budget resolution to voting against the revised version. A key reason for her opposition? Concerns that the Medicaid cuts would harm low-income and older constituents. Lisa Murkowski: When she voted for the budget blueprint in April that kick-started the process of writing the legislation, the Alaska Republican quickly followed it up with a broad set of grievances that will need to be addressed, or she'll be 'unable to support' the final product. That includes the changes to Medicaid, the cost of the tax cuts and the phaseout of clean energy tax credits that benefit her state. Ron Johnson: The Wisconsin Republican has railed against the bill and its estimated $2.4 trillion contribution to the deficit, insisting he can't vote for it as written. He has slammed the idea of a megabill, calling for breaking it up and limiting the debt ceiling hike. Trump asked him to be 'less negative' during a meeting at the White House this week, Johnson said. ✉️ Mailbag: Who loses in a U.S.-China trade war? Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. 'Who is in worse shape if the two countries don't trade any longer?' To answer this, we turned to senior policy reporter Shannon Pettypiece, who has been covering the ins and outs of Trump's tariff agenda. Here's her response: Both the U.S. and China have a lot to lose by cutting off trade ties with each other, but in some ways, not as much as they did before the first wave of China tariffs Trump imposed in 2018. Chinese companies have been shifting production offshore, to neighboring countries like Vietnam and even Mexico, while Chinese officials have worked to boost trade with other trading partners, like the European Union. The share of total Chinese exports to the U.S. has dropped to an estimated 14% in 2024 from 19% in 2018. Across China's entire economy, U.S. exports account for 3% of China's gross domestic product, and a sustained U.S. tariff rate of 60% could reduce China's GDP by 2 percentage points, according to Goldman Sachs. In short, that would be bad for China's economy, but not entirely crippling. China's economy isn't on the strongest footing at the moment. Its growth has slowed since the Covid pandemic and the country is grappling with a collapse in its real estate market, which has wiped out the savings for many Chinese. The U.S. has also been working to lessen its dependence on China in recent years, and U.S. companies have increasingly been shifting their manufacturing out of China. China accounts for about 15% of total U.S. imports, down from about 22% in 2018. But the U.S. is still heavily dependent on China in a number of key areas, like rare earth metals crucial for U.S. manufacturing of cars and defense equipment. About a third of U.S. imports from China are in product categories where the vast majority of those items come from China, according to Goldman Sachs. That means, even a temporary halt to shipments from China could lead to supply chain shortages, like those seen during the Covid pandemic. But who blinks first or offers more concessions in a trade standoff could have just as much to do with politics as economics. China removed term limits on President Xi Jinping in 2018, essentially allowing him to remain in power for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. will have midterm elections next year and another presidential contest in 2028.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
US must face claims over pandemic ban on residential evictions
June 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court ruled Friday that the United States must face potentially billions of dollars in legal claims over a temporary ban on residential evictions during the COVID pandemic that affected millions of landlords. The Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a 7-3 decision, opens new tab rejected the government's bid to overturn a decision by a panel of judges last year that refused to dismiss claims from landlords seeking compensation over the eviction moratorium. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in September 2020 issued a nationwide order halting residential evictions after the expiration of an earlier 120-day directive by Congress. The agency's order, which lasted about a year, focused on combating the spread of the coronavirus. The court ruling on Friday could spur the United States to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Damages have been estimated at tens of billions of dollars, as rental property owners were blocked from evicting people who were not paying rent. The Justice Department and a lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Residential rental property owners sued over the CDC moratorium in Federal Claims court, seeking compensation under the U.S. Constitution's 5th Amendment 'takings' clause. They argued the government had taken their property for public use. The moratorium was in place until August 2021, when the U.S. Supreme Court ended the Biden administration policy. A Federal Circuit divided panel last August reinstated, opens new tab the claims against the United States, and the Justice Department then asked the full appeals court to take up the dispute. In a filing in January, the government said the panel decision 'upends over a century of precedent' and said the decision will have 'significant consequences in this case and others.' Lawyers for the property owners urged the full appeals court not to disturb the panel's earlier decision. The government 'merely wants another bite at the apple with the hope of a different outcome,' the lawyers said. The case is Darby Development Company Inc et al v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2022-1929. For plaintiffs: Creighton Magid of Dorsey & Whitney For defendant: Nathanael Yale of the Justice Department Read more: U.S. Supreme Court ends CDC's pandemic residential eviction moratorium
