By Park Jung-won Last Wednesday, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), was acquitted on appeal of charges related to publishing false information under the Public Official Election Act, a judgment that was a shock to many Koreans. The court ruled that even though Lee had made significant false statements, his remarks could not be legally punished because they were made during a live broadcast, pertained to perception rather than specific actions and constituted general impressions or opinions. This judgment essentially means that politicians can legally lie during the public election process. Some observers remarked sarcastically that the key part of the verdict acquitting Lee was incomprehensible no matter how many times they read it. They argued that the judgment, which separates perception from action, resembles surrealist alien science fiction rather than a legal ruling based on common sense. The DPK brazenly used the term “justice” to describe the court's acquittal as if it were the realization of true judicial fairness. It is incomprehensible how Lee has managed to evade his serious legal risks so far. Is he a son of God? President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law was a reckless and misguided act. However, in assessing the overall dynamics of the Dec. 3 martial law incident, which has effectively thrown Korean society into a state of near political anarchy for several months, one cannot overlook the actions of Lee, the leader of the opposition party. He is an indispensable figure in evaluating the aftermath of Yoon’s martial law declaration. Would it be an exaggeration to say that Lee has taken advantage of the political turmoil by undermining the nation, employing any means necessary to evade his numerous legal troubles and striving solely to ascend to the presidency? Lee said that if Yoon returned to office after surviving the impeachment trial, the country would be ruined. However, roughly half of the Korean population believes that the country would also be ruined if Lee became president. In a society where expectations of strict and fair application of the rule of law are low, the verdict of Yoon's impeachment trial has regrettably become a simple and dismal decision about which respective wrongs committed by these two individuals are more severe — essentially, determining who is the worse person. At first, the Constitutional Court appeared to have little need for deliberation, as the unconstitutionality and illegality of the martial law declaration seemed evident. The primary task was to determine whether these illegal actions were severe enough to warrant the president’s removal — a decision that initially did not seem challenging. However, over time and in unexpected ways, the situation took a 180-degree turn. The DPK, under the one-man quasi-dictatorship of Lee, who has been constantly worried over his legal troubles, took measures to accelerate the impeachment process against Yoon. In doing so, they removed the charge of insurrection from the stated reasons for impeachment, which started to complicate matters. Insurrection is a significant act of constitutional disorder that could have ensured Yoon’s impeachment. But it is much harder to prove, and trying to do so would have taken more time. The DPK believed that discarding the charge of insurrection would result in Yoon's swifter removal. This impatience stemmed from its goal to see Yoon's impeachment completed before the verdict of Lee’s appellate trial for election law violations had arrived, which would improve Lee’s chances in a subsequent early presidential election. The DPK thought that the other charges alone were sufficient to impeach Yoon. That proved to be a significant misstep. During Yoon’s subsequent impeachment trial, issues such as insufficient evidence, false statements, intimidation and inducements only amplified doubts about the case against Yoon. Outside the court, massive protests opposing impeachment, involving around 1 million conservative citizens, elevated Yoon to the status of a hero, effectively encircling both the Constitutional Court and the DPK. Amid this, the Seoul District Court delivered a “historic” ruling to cancel Yoon's arrest. The court questioned the legitimacy of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials' (CIO) investigation into insurrection and the validity of the charges themselves. The real reason for Yoon's release was the court’s stance that the CIO lacked investigative authority and that it was uncertain whether Yoon's declaration of martial law constituted insurrection. The Constitutional Court began to waver after being hit by three major blows: the removal of the insurrection charge, the anti-impeachment protests and the cancellation of Yoon’s arrest. In light of Lee’s recent acquittal, many Koreans have lost faith in the judiciary, believing that trial outcomes are determined by judges’ political interests. And according to a recent poll, only 53 percent of Koreans trust the Constitutional Court. The perception is that if politically motivated judges can render a not-guilty verdict in a case where Lee’s guilt seemed obvious, then it would be relatively straightforward for a few Constitutional Court justices sympathetic to Yoon to interpret any issues regarding his declaration of martial law as insufficient grounds for removal, thereby dismissing the impeachment. In other words, while questions remain about the legitimacy of the martial law declaration, it can be argued that such actions fall within the president's exclusive authority. Although there were procedural concerns regarding the convening of a Cabinet meeting, Yoon did assemble the prime minister and other ministers for a meeting resembling a Cabinet meeting session. Furthermore, the DPK itself later removed the insurrection charge from the impeachment grounds. In this context, the Seoul District Court’s decision to cancel Yoon’s arrest, questioning the legitimacy of the investigations conducted by the CIO, prosecution and police — which had previously labeled Yoon as the leader of an insurrection — has brought the issue back to square one. In a situation where judges can craft implausible verdicts to eliminate legal obstacles for Lee’s presidential bid, a dismissal of Yoon's impeachment by sympathetic Constitutional Court justices would seem a relatively easy task. This is the uncomfortable state of affairs in Korea during this cruel April. Park Jung-won (park_jungwon@hotmail.com), Ph.D. in law from the London School of Economics, is a professor of international law at Dankook University.