<Anchor>

Until today (16th), opinions were tightly contested even among the Supreme Court. It is said that the freedom of political expression was widely guaranteed, but some pointed out whether the standard for making false statements was ambiguous.

Reporter Jun-Woo Bae continues.

<Reporter>

Governor Lee Jae-myung was accused of publishing false information under the Public Official Election Act because of the remarks of this TV debate in 2018.

[Kim Young-hwan / Governor of Gyeonggi-do, the right future party at the time (May 2018, screen provided by KBS): Did you try to hospitalize your brother in a mental hospital?]

[Lee Jae-myung/Gov . Governor of the Democratic Party at the time (May 2018, screen provided by KBS) : I do not like that one.

[Kim, Young - Hwan / time right miraedang Gyeonggi governor candidate (in May 2018, providing the screen: KBS):? Why, did not you through Health Director]

[yijaemyeong / time Democratic Gyeonggi Governor candidate (2018 May, screen provided: KBS): No such thing. I couldn't ask for it myself, and I was finally unable to do it because it was under my jurisdiction.] In the

first trial, I was innocent, but in the second trial, Governor Lee Jae-myeong declared "intentionally declared false information" for the election. I was sentenced to 10,000 won.

The opinions of the four Supreme Court Justices also met in the Supreme Court's case, and ultimately, they were referred to as the alliance.

Seven Supreme Court Justices, including Supreme Court Justice Kim Myung-soo, decided that the remarks of Governor Lee Jae-myeong could not be deliberately seen on the basis of freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

[Kim Myung-soo/President of the Supreme Court: Even if there is some inaccuracy, or some exaggeration, or there is room for interpretation, it should not be evaluated as a false publicity.]

On the other hand, the fact that five people, including Supreme Court Justice Sang-Ok Park, was unfavorable in two debates He confessed to the fact that he said only the facts that were hidden and advantageous.

[Park Sang-ok/ Supreme Court Justice: There is a growing concern that voluntary interpretation will be entrusted, and the public will not know whether or not it is a publicity act prohibited by false facts.]

Even if only one more objector was disagreed, the opinions remained the same until the majority of the opinions came out. I was almost going to continue.

Although the Supreme Court condemned that the decision made it possible to broaden the freedom of political expression, it would be difficult to disagree whether the standards of publicity of false facts would be ambiguous as the opinions of the Supreme Court stood up.

(Video coverage: Yongwoo Kim, Video editing: Yumira)