The core legal question before the court is whether Oh instructed a political supporter to cover the costs of opinion polls commissioned from Myung Tae-kyun, a self-proclaimed power broker. The special prosecution team, led by Min Joong-ki, alleges that Oh had a supporter, businessman Kim Han-jung, make payments totaling 33 million won for 10 separate opinion polls conducted ahead of the April 2021 election. The lower court, in its July verdict, partially recognized these charges, finding that Oh had requested polls on five occasions and that Kim had paid 21 million won for three unpublished polls and two intended for publication. The district court concluded that because the money was transferred before Kim and Myung had developed a personal relationship, the payments would have been difficult without instructions from Oh’s side. Consequently, Oh was sentenced to a fine of 10 million won and ordered to forfeit the same amount.
Both sides have appealed the lower court’s decision. The special counsel’s team is seeking a prison term of one year and six months for Oh, along with a forfeiture of 33 million won, arguing that the payments constituted a clear violation of the Political Funds Act. In contrast, Oh’s defense team has maintained his innocence, arguing that it would have been contrary to his political beliefs to ask a supporter to make payments on his behalf. The defense has reinforced its legal team for the appeal, mounting a more robust challenge to the lower court’s reasoning. A key variable in the appellate proceedings is the emergence of a recording in which Oh is heard saying, “Oh Se-hoon doesn’t know,” which the defense may seek to use to establish his lack of knowledge regarding the specific payment arrangements.
The sentencing hearing is being broadcast live, a decision approved by the court following a request from the special counsel’s team. This transparency underscores the high stakes involved, as the outcome will not only affect Oh’s tenure but also the political landscape of the People Power Party, the main opposition group. Party leaders have publicly expressed confidence in an acquittal, emphasizing that the judgment should be based strictly on the law and evidence. However, the case has also attracted criticism from within the opposition ranks regarding judicial independence. Seo Young-kyo, chairman of the National Assembly’s Legislative and Judiciary Committee, issued a statement urging that Oh be sentenced to prison, a move that party spokespersons condemned as a violation of judicial neutrality.
Seo’s comments, made during the National Audit of the Public Prosecution Service, sparked debate over the boundaries of political commentary on ongoing judicial proceedings. Chung Hee-yong, the party’s Secretary-General, described Seo’s stance as a “clear violation of judicial independence” and a pressure tactic to influence the trial’s outcome. Rep. Kim Tae-kyu, chairman of the party’s legal advisory committee, went further, calling for Seo’s resignation from his committee chairmanship, arguing that his role as a former Justice Minister and current legislative leader required him to remain neutral. The party spokesperson, Cho Yong-sul, drew parallels to past abuses of power by the ruling Democratic Party, warning that such interventions could have broader political repercussions.
Alongside Oh, former Seoul Vice Mayor for Political Affairs Kang Chul-won, who allegedly facilitated the communication between Oh and Myung, and Kim Han-jung are also facing charges. The legal team for Oh has argued that the lower court’s finding of guilt was based on circumstantial evidence regarding the timing of the transfers, rather than direct proof of instruction. The appellate court’s decision will hinge on whether it finds the evidence sufficient to prove that Oh directed the payments, a determination that will have immediate consequences for his eligibility to hold office. If the conviction is upheld, Oh will lose his seat, potentially leading to by-elections and shifting the balance of power in Seoul’s local government.
The case highlights the strict enforcement of political funding laws in South Korea, designed to prevent the influence of private money on public elections. The Political Funds Act stipulates that any benefit received by a candidate or public official from a third party in connection with an election is subject to criminal penalty. The lower court’s ruling reflected a cautious approach, recognizing only a portion of the alleged payments as tainted, but the amount still exceeded the threshold for disqualification. The upcoming verdict will test the consistency of this interpretation and the extent to which appellate courts are willing to review factual findings in complex political cases.
As the court prepares to deliver its ruling, the attention of Seoul’s political establishment remains fixed on the courtroom. The outcome will not only resolve the legal status of the sitting mayor but also serve as a precedent for the handling of political funding disputes in future elections. The parties involved have prepared for both possible outcomes, with Oh’s team advocating for a full acquittal and the prosecution pushing for a punitive sentence that would remove him from office. The live broadcast ensures that the public can observe the judicial process, reinforcing the transparency that is central to the legitimacy of the legal system in such high-profile cases.
