Seo Young-kyo calls for legal reckoning against Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon

Rep. Seo Young-kyo, chair of the Democratic Party of Korea's Myung Tae-kyun Gate fact-finding committee and chair of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, called on Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon to face legal consequences in the wake of former President Yoon Suk Yeol's first-instance sentence of two years in prison, saying "the hammer of the law must now fall on Oh Se-hoon, the 'Yoon Suk Yeol of Seoul.'"

Seo made the remarks at a press conference held Tuesday at the National Assembly's press briefing room alongside members of the fact-finding committee, calling the ruling "an entirely expected verdict."

He said the committee "has relentlessly pursued the truth alongside the public to expose the reality of the state power abuse by Yoon Suk Yeol and Kim Keon Hee," adding that "on Monday, the court issued a ruling acknowledging the substance of the Myung Tae-kyun Gate."

Seo said Yoon "received illegal polling that influenced the presidential election free of charge and won the presidency, then used his influence over the nomination of former lawmaker Kim Young-sun as repayment for those polls," adding that "even so, the Yoon administration and the People Power Party denied the truth, evaded responsibility and tried to deceive the public."

Seo said the court further found that "there was an exercise of influence over former lawmaker Kim Young-sun's nomination process through Jang Je-won, who was then chief of staff to the president-elect, and that one of the reasons for that influence was repayment for the provision of polling data." He added that the court also stated in its sentencing rationale that "polling has a significant impact on voters' choices, and its objectivity and credibility have a profound effect on democracy." The court, he said, sharply rebuked the defendants for denying the charges to the end despite having deepened public distrust and caused serious harm to democratic development.

Seo also said a separate court panel had acquitted defendants by citing the absence of a written contract for the polling arrangement — "an unrealistic view that secret backroom dealings must be proven with a contract." That ruling, he said, had drawn wide public criticism as "a verdict of intent to acquit," gravely undermining public trust in the judiciary, while Monday's ruling "was a commonsense decision that corrected, at least in part, that stain."