Special Counsel Seeks to Uphold Yoon Election Conviction as Party Faces 39.7 Billion Won Repayment

October 27 Verdict Could Decide a Costly Election Dispute

South Korea's special counsel has asked the Seoul High Court to uphold former President Yoon Suk Yeol's conviction for false statements during his presidential campaign, leaving the People Power Party facing the possible repayment of 39.7 billion won in reimbursed election expenses. The appeal judgment is scheduled for October 27, following closing arguments on October 13.

The team led by Special Prosecutor Min Joong-ki requested dismissal of Yoon's appeal and retention of the sentence imposed in July: one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years. The lower court found him guilty over statements concerning a lawyer's introduction to a former tax office chief and his relationship with a shaman known as Geon Jin.

The case was heard by the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 2-1, with Judges Baek Seung-yeop, Hwang Seung-tae and Kim Young-hyun on the panel. Baek presided. Prosecutors argued that the statements concerned matters important to voters and helped Yoon retain his position as a leading candidate in a closely contested election.

Yoon denies that his remarks amounted to criminal falsehoods. His defense says the prosecution and lower court misunderstood the questions he was answering and treated limited denials as broader statements. The appeal therefore concerns both what happened before the campaign and what his public answers actually meant.

Two Campaign Appearances at the Center of the Case

The first charge concerns a December 14, 2021, debate hosted by the Kwanhun Club. Yoon said, in substance, that he had not introduced a lawyer to Yoon Woo-jin, the former head of the Yongsan District Tax Office. The lawyer was identified in the appeal reporting as Lee Nam-seok, formerly of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

Yoon Woo-jin is the older brother of Yoon Dae-jin, a former senior prosecutor described as a close associate of the former president during his prosecution career. The special counsel's position is that Yoon Suk Yeol did make the introduction, then denied it during the campaign because he feared damage to his support.

The second charge concerns remarks to reporters at the launch of the Buddhist Leaders Forum on January 17, 2022. Yoon described being introduced to Jeon Seong-bae, known as Geon Jin, through a party official and denied having met him together with his wife, Kim Keon-hee.

Prosecutors contend that this account concealed a much longer relationship and that Kim, rather than a party official, introduced the two men. The lower court found both sets of statements constituted the publication of false facts under the Public Official Election Act.

Who Introduced the Lawyer?

On the lawyer allegation, the special counsel cited an earlier media interview, text messages sent by the lawyer and the former tax chief's telephone records. Prosecutors argued that these established Yoon's involvement and that his denial was an explanation developed after the introduction became an issue during his confirmation hearing for prosecutor general.

The defense offered a competing account: Yoon Dae-jin, not Yoon Suk Yeol, connected Lee Nam-seok with Yoon Woo-jin. Yoon Dae-jin testified that he had made the introduction, giving the appeal panel testimony that directly challenged the prosecution's account.

Yoon's lawyers also argued that even if he had connected the two men, his campaign answer denied formally arranging legal representation rather than any contact between them. That distinction is central to their argument that the remarks should not be treated as a criminal false statement.

In his final statement, former President Yoon denied arranging assistance from the lawyer:

I never legally introduced Lee Nam-seok to Yoon Woo-jin or asked him to meet and help.

The court must assess the conflicting accounts alongside the interview, messages and call records cited by prosecutors. The existence of an introduction, who made it and the scope of Yoon's later denial remain disputed in the appeal.

The Dispute Over Geon Jin and Kim Keon-hee

The special counsel argued that Yoon maintained a relationship with Jeon for about 10 years and that Kim introduced them. Prosecutors said evidence showed a close connection, contradicting the campaign explanation of an introduction through a party official.

They also argued that the relationship mattered to voters because controversy over Kim and shamanism was continuing during the campaign. Their accusation is that Yoon obscured a relevant personal connection, then changed his account during the trial.

The defense disputes the breadth of that interpretation. His lawyers said the January 2022 remarks were intended to reject suspicions that he relied on a shaman or used Jeon as an unofficial adviser, not to deny every previous meeting.

Yoon, addressing the court in his final statement, argued that the exchange concerned a particular setting rather than his entire relationship with Jeon:

Interpreting the exchange, which was based on a specific time and place, as meaning my wife and I never met Jeon at all distorts the Korean language.

This part of the appeal turns on the reach of the answer as well as the history of the relationship. Prosecutors treat it as a false account of how Yoon knew Jeon and whether the couple met him together. The defense says that reading strips away the context of the reporters' questions.

Why the 0.74 Percentage Point Margin Matters

Prosecutors placed the disputed statements against the narrow result of the 2022 presidential election. Yoon defeated then Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae Myung by 0.74 percentage points, a margin the special counsel described as the smallest in South Korea's presidential election history.

The team said the candidates had been tied in support on several occasions during the campaign. It argued that suspicions subsided after Yoon's statements and that he retained his standing as a leading contender.

In its final opinion, Min's special counsel team connected those circumstances to its claim that the statements affected the vote:

Given the approval rating trends and the narrow vote margin, Yoon's false statements must be deemed to have influenced the election.

That remains a prosecution argument, not an appeal finding. The 0.74 percentage point difference establishes how close the contest was, but does not by itself measure how many voters responded to either statement. The accounts of the hearing do not provide poll figures that would isolate their effect.

The defense's response focuses on a different question: whether Yoon's answers were false when read in context. The appeal panel must determine whether the conviction should stand, rather than simply accept the prosecution's interpretation of a close election result.

How the Sentence Could Trigger Party Repayment

The financial consequence arises from the Public Official Election Act. Under the provisions described in the hearing accounts, a final conviction for an election offense carrying a fine of at least 1 million won invalidates the candidate's election. A prison sentence falls above that threshold even when its execution is suspended.

A suspended sentence means the prison term is not ordered to be served immediately, subject to the conditions attached to the suspension. It does not erase the conviction or remove the election consequences that would follow if the judgment became final.

The law also assigns repayment responsibility to the nominating party when a presidential candidate's election is invalidated. The People Power Party would therefore have to return approximately 39.7 billion won to the National Election Commission if the conviction and qualifying sentence become final.

The reimbursement rules described in the reports provide full reimbursement of eligible campaign expenses to a presidential candidate who wins or receives at least 15 percent of the vote. The money at issue is campaign reimbursement, not a criminal fine of 39.7 billion won imposed on Yoon.

Reports translate that sum as roughly $27 million or $28 million. The won figure is consistent; the dollar estimates differ. An adverse appeal judgment would not itself establish that every further avenue of appeal had been exhausted, so repayment should still be described as conditional.

From Campaign Statements to Closing Arguments

The proceedings span campaign appearances in 2021 and 2022, a July conviction and October appeal arguments. The key dates are:

• December 14, 2021: Yoon's Kwanhun Club remarks about introducing a lawyer to Yoon Woo-jin.
• January 17, 2022: His remarks about Jeon Seong-bae at the Buddhist Leaders Forum launch.
• July: The lower court convicted Yoon and imposed an 18 month prison sentence, suspended for three years.
• October 13, 2026: The appeal reached closing arguments at the Seoul High Court.
• October 27: The appeal judgment is scheduled.

Reports differ on the earlier schedule for closing arguments. One gives an initial date of September 22 and says a defense request for a date change, followed by a prosecution application for additional evidence, delayed completion. Another gives September 29 and says Yoon Dae-jin's testimony ran long, prompting the court to allow more time for review and preparation.

Those accounts do not establish a single complete sequence of postponements. They do agree that closing arguments ultimately took place on October 13 and that the lawyer introduction dispute was part of the evidence considered before the case concluded.

What the Appeal Court Has Yet to Decide

The special counsel sought a two year prison term at the first trial. At the appeal hearing, it instead asked the judges to preserve the lower court's sentence, arguing that it fell within a reasonable exercise of sentencing discretion. The defense requested acquittal.

The October 27 judgment is expected to determine whether the lower court's findings and sentence survive this stage of the case. The panel has not yet announced its decision on the conflicting testimony, the meaning of the campaign answers or the defense's contextual arguments.

The immediate distinction is between a prosecutor's request and a court's ruling. Min's team has asked for a result that could invalidate Yoon's past election victory and expose his party to repayment. Neither consequence should be presented as settled while the appeal judgment and any further proceedings remain outstanding.

Key Points

• The special counsel asked the Seoul High Court to dismiss Yoon Suk Yeol's appeal and uphold his election law conviction.
• The lower court imposed one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years.
• The case concerns campaign statements about a lawyer's introduction and Yoon's relationship with Jeon Seong-bae.
• The defense disputes both the factual account and the prosecution's reading of Yoon's answers.
• A final qualifying conviction would invalidate his election and require the People Power Party to repay about 39.7 billion won.
• The appeal judgment is scheduled for October 27.