Prosecutors say, “It is contradictory to say that Lee Jae-myeong has been proven as a teacher of perjury and that there is no concern about destroying evidence.”

“The dismissal of the warrant is difficult to understand and very regrettable.”

The prosecution expressed its position that it was “difficult to understand and very regrettable” that the court dismissed the arrest warrant for Lee Jae-myeong, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, early on the morning of the 27th.

The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office said on this day, “(The court) acknowledged that the charge of instigation of perjury was vindicated and said there was considerable suspicion that the suspect was involved in the Baekhyeon-dong development corruption, but there was room for dispute based on Lee Hwa-young’s statement acknowledging the suspect’s involvement in remittances to North Korea. “It is difficult to understand the judgment that there is,” he said. In addition, “even though the fact that the charge of instigation of perjury was vindicated means that the destruction of evidence was realistic, it was judged that ‘there is no concern about destruction of evidence,’ and while acknowledging circumstances메이저사이트 that may raise suspicion of inappropriate intervention by people around them, ‘there is no concern about destruction of evidence.’ “It’s contradictory,” he said. The prosecution said, “We will continue to conduct additional investigations to unwaveringly uncover the truth in accordance with law and principles.”

Previously, Chief Judge Yoo Chang-hoon of the Seoul Central District Court in charge of warrants dismissed the arrest warrant for Representative Lee at around 2:23 a.m. on this day, saying, “It is difficult to say that there is a reason and necessity for detention to the extent that the principle of non-custodial investigation excludes it.” Regarding the charge of instigation of perjury applied to Representative Lee, Chief Judge Yoo said, “It appears that the charge has been proven.” On the other hand, it was judged that the prosecution’s explanation was insufficient regarding the suspicion of preferential development of Baekhyeon-dong apartments and the suspicion of Ssangbangwool’s illegal remittance to North Korea. Regarding the Baekhyeon-dong project, Chief Judge Yoo said, “There is considerable suspicion that CEO Lee was involved in the exclusion of the corporation from participating in the project, but at this point in time, direct evidence regarding this is lacking, and the suspect’s right to defense is limited.” “It seems difficult to determine,” he said. Regarding the suspicion of Ssangbangwool’s illegal remittance to North Korea, he said, “Based on the relevant data to date, there is room for dispute regarding the suspect’s awareness, collusion, degree of involvement, etc.”

Chief Judge Yoo also did not accept the prosecution’s argument about concerns about destruction of evidence. Chief Judge Yoo said, “In the case of the perjury teacher and the Baekhyeon-dong development project, it is difficult to say that there is a risk of evidence destruction in light of the human and material data secured to date.” In the case of the charge of remittances to North Korea, “there are circumstances that raise suspicion of inappropriate intervention by people around the suspect,” but citing the lack of data to conclude that Representative Lee was directly involved, “we conclude that there is concern about the destruction of evidence.” “It’s difficult to do,” he said.