Cho Kuk, director of the Innovation Policy Research Institute of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party, expressed two separate views regarding President Lee Jae-myung’s Public Official Election Act trial and discussions about dismissing the prosecution. On September 1, 2026, Cho said that unless the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning is overturned again, a guilty verdict would be highly likely in the second trial that could resume after Lee’s term in office. At the same time, he argued that a fabricated prosecution must first be established before pursuing dismissal of the prosecution.
Key Changes
The two points that must be distinguished in these remarks are the “guilty verdict forecast” and the “conditions for dismissing the prosecution.” Cho’s prediction of a guilty verdict is a political and legal opinion, not a final court ruling. Therefore, Lee Jae-myung’s guilt or innocence cannot be considered decided based solely on these remarks.
According to a Newsis report, the case involves charges of publicly making false statements during the 2021 presidential election. The Supreme Court’s Grand Bench overturned the appellate court’s acquittal and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court with instructions consistent with a guilty finding. The “second trial that could resume after his term,” mentioned by Cho, refers to the proceedings following this remand.
Cho’s prediction of a guilty verdict should be understood as the speaker’s forecast, not as the outcome of a judgment.
Current Status
The statutory timing for dismissing a prosecution is set out in Article 255 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The provision effective July 1, 2026, states that a prosecution may be dismissed before the first-instance judgment is pronounced. By contrast, dismissal of an indictment is a procedure determined by the court. Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court must issue a judgment dismissing the indictment in certain circumstances, including when the procedure for bringing the prosecution is invalid because it violated the law.
Although the two concepts may be discussed together in political debate, they are not the same procedure. Dismissal of a prosecution is an act by a prosecutor within the period prescribed by law, while dismissal of an indictment is a court judgment issued after the court examines whether specified grounds exist. Therefore, the existence of discussions about dismissing the prosecution does not mean that either dismissal of the prosecution or dismissal of the indictment has been decided.
Cho said that if dismissal of the prosecution is sought on the grounds of a fabricated prosecution, the fabricated prosecution must first be established and evidence must be secured through an inspection or an investigation by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials. This was Cho’s argument that a fact-finding process and evidence are required before the prosecution can be dismissed.
Impact
The Ministry of Justice established the Committee for Respecting Human Rights in the Future of the Prosecution, which can investigate allegations of human-rights violations or abuse of authority in the prosecution’s investigation and indictment processes and recommend follow-up measures. According to the Ministry of Justice’s official guidance, allegations not based on factual relationships and simple expressions of opinion are excluded from the committee’s review.
When the committee selected the case involving President Lee Jae-myung for a fact-finding investigation, the People Power Party interpreted the decision as an effort to pursue dismissal of the prosecution and criticized it. However, the committee’s official role is to investigate allegations of human-rights violations or abuse of authority in the prosecution’s investigation and indictment processes and recommend follow-up measures. Selecting a case for investigation and actually deciding to dismiss the prosecution are separate stages.
Kim Min-seok, chairman of the Democratic Party, argued during the party convention that if a fabricated prosecution by the prosecution service is clearly established, dismissal of the prosecution should be the rule. This statement is also a political position and must be distinguished from a court judgment dismissing the indictment or a final government measure.
In summary, the changes currently confirmed are Cho’s remarks, the progress of the proceedings following the Supreme Court’s remand, the legal standards for dismissal of a prosecution and dismissal of an indictment, and the competing interpretations by the ruling and opposition parties. A final guilty verdict, a confirmed dismissal of the prosecution, or a conclusion that the committee’s investigation is a procedure intended to secure dismissal of the prosecution are not among the confirmed facts.
Next Checkpoints
The key point to monitor is the schedule and procedure under which the second trial at the Seoul High Court may actually resume after Lee’s term in office. The result must be confirmed through the court’s judgment; Cho’s forecast and statements by political parties cannot be treated as equivalent to a judgment.
Discussions about dismissing the prosecution should be examined across three separate points.
- Whether the allegation of a fabricated prosecution is confirmed through an inspection or investigation based on facts and evidence
- Whether the timing falls within the period during which dismissal of the prosecution is permitted under the Criminal Procedure Act
- Whether the court recognizes grounds for dismissing the indictment
It is also necessary to monitor whether the results of the Committee for Respecting Human Rights in the Future of the Prosecution’s investigation and its follow-up recommendations are made public. The fact that the committee is investigating the case alone cannot establish in advance that the prosecution or indictment will be dismissed. When an actual measure is announced, its content and legal basis must be reviewed together.