Former President Yoon Suk-yeol's appeal trial verdict. MBN screen capture

The appeal trial verdict for former President Yoon Suk-yeol left a larger question beyond the guilt or innocence of a single case: the boundary of public relations by state institutions. 

On the 29th, the Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik), which handles insurrection cases at the Seoul High Court, reversed the first instance court's not-guilty verdict and found former President Yoon guilty of abuse of power related to the creation and dissemination of press guidance (PG) for foreign media. 

The issue is not simply whether it was false public information. 

The appellate court ruled that public officials should not highlight only positive aspects contrary to objective circumstances in the process of drafting and distributing press releases, or use exaggerated or definitive language when there are uncertainties. 

The dissemination of false information is, of course, subject to verification. However, if even public relations that emphasize the positive aspects of policies or measures become a factor in determining abuse of power, the implications are entirely different. 

Government press releases are not neutral white papers. They are public relations materials that explain the intent and expected effects of policies, and the direction of institutional improvement to the public. Therefore, if the standard of 'merely highlighting positive aspects' rises to the threshold of a crime, that standard cannot remain confined to former President Yoon's case alone.

Criminalization of Public Relations: The Standard Must Be the Same for Everyone

Attorney Yoo Jung-hwa pointed this out as the core issue. 

Attorney Yoo criticized that the appellate court found the false public relations part, which was judged not guilty in the first instance, to be guilty, stating that this expands criminal punishment to the realm of state expression and is an overly broad interpretation of the Supreme Court's legal principles regarding abuse of power.

This verification report focuses precisely on this point. Public relations from the Presidential Office, press releases from government ministries, statistical publications from national data agencies, and explanatory materials from election commissions are all forms of expression by state institutions. 

The distinction between false information and selective emphasis can become a standard for all public relations of public institutions in the future, going beyond former President Yoon's case.

The first target to come under scrutiny could be the current government's public relations regarding trade negotiations with the US.

The government described the $350 billion US investment negotiations as a diplomatic achievement. However, considering the US side's announcements, the original foreign press reports, parliamentary inquiry materials, and the lack of administrative records, there was a significant gap between the government's explanation and the actual negotiation structure.

Hanmi Ilbo previously reported that immediately after the summit, the Presidential Office promoted the meeting as "a successful summit that didn't even require a joint statement," but a joint report from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy and Finance contained the sentence, "differences in positions between the two countries persist." It also pointed out the difficulty in finding documents containing key keywords such as 'tariffs,' '$350 billion,' 'MOU,' 'guarantee,' and 'loan' in the Presidential Office's briefing archives.

If the government declared a "resolution" but no documents existed, declared "achievement" but did not adequately explain the conditions and burdens, and stated "cash demand" but there were significant differences in interpretation and original wording, then this is subject to verification. 

If the government intends to address false public relations and public relations that only highlight positive aspects, then the Presidential Office's briefings on US negotiations must be held to the same standard.

Numbers and Election Commission Public Relations Are Not Exempt

The public relations on the National Happiness Index and Life Satisfaction by the National Data Agency are not exempt from the same standards. 

Hanmi Ilbo's report on April 1st, "[Exclusive] National Data Agency's 'Life Satisfaction 80.8%' Statistic Manipulation Suspicion," pointed out the issue where the same raw data was presented as a score-based index of 6.4 at one point, and later as a percentage-based index of 80.8% by grouping respondents who scored 6 or higher.

This matter is not simply a case of false statistics. It is a question of what criteria are used to segment the same data, and what titles and figures are presented to the public. 

A metric of an average of 6.4 and a percentage of 80.8% can give entirely different impressions to the public, even if they come from the same data. If the appellate court's legal principles question exaggerated or definitive language and the highlighting of positive aspects, then statistical public relations cannot be an exception.

The same applies to the public relations of the election commission. 

The election commission is an independent institution under the constitution. Its status is not a privilege but a basis for a higher duty of explanation. 

On the 21st, the National Election Commission issued a press release stating, "Intensive Prevention and Crackdown on False Absentee Ballot Applications and Voting Purpose Impersonation," announcing that it would conduct special prevention and crackdown activities ahead of the June 3rd local elections and by-elections. 

The will to crack down was clear. However, whether the election commission is explaining the status of protecting the voting rights of vulnerable voters as much as its will to crack down is a separate issue. 

Hanmi Ilbo's report on the 22nd, "[Investigation] The Era of 2 Million Vulnerable Voters... The Election Commission Lacks Statistics," raised the issue of the lack of statistics on direct and absentee voting paths, presenting the scale of vulnerable voters as approximately 1.92 million, including about 1.24 million dementia patients and about 680,000 patients with severe mental illness.

If the election commission emphasized its willingness to crack down on false absentee voting and its capacity for system management, while failing to present the status of protecting the voting rights of vulnerable voters and verifiable statistics, then this is also subject to verification by the same standard. 

The same applies to explanations regarding the printing of names by early voting managers, publicity about ballot box CCTV, seals, and observer systems, and refutations of allegations of election fraud.

Refusal to Disclose Basis Materials Is Also Subject to Verification

The issue of public relations does not end with the wording of press releases. 

If a public institution explains certain facts and policy effects through a press release, the materials that form the basis of that explanation must also be verifiable. 

If press releases are made public but the underlying basis materials are refused to be disclosed, the public has no way of confirming whether the announced content is factual, selectively emphasized, or omits unfavorable facts.

Attorney Park Ju-hyun stated regarding the refusal of public institutions to disclose information, "If the public is informed of a certain conclusion and asked to believe it, then the materials and the basis for judgment that led to that conclusion must also be explained to the extent possible for disclosure." She added, "(Although I do not agree with the decision of the insurrection court) if disclosure is refused for parts other than personal information, then according to the insurrection court's judgment, abuse of power can be examined."

This points out that the refusal to disclose basis materials for press releases is an extension of public relations verification and, when necessary, is subject to judicial review.

Ultimately, there is only one problem. 

False public relations must, of course, be verified. However, if even 'public relations that only highlight positive aspects' are raised to the threshold of a crime, it is not only former President Yoon Suk-yeol who stands before that threshold. 

The current government's Presidential Office briefings on US negotiations, the National Data Agency's public relations on the National Happiness Index, and the Election Commission's press releases must all be placed on the same verification table. 

Otherwise, the ruling becomes an ad hoc standard directed at a specific defendant, not a legal principle. 

Conversely, if this is to be used as a general legal principle, it is inevitable that numerous lawsuits and accusations will follow regarding press releases from various government ministries and public institutions, and the refusal to disclose their basis materials.

The Supreme Court Must Provide the Standard for Illegality

What is the boundary between disseminating false information and explaining policy positions?

To what extent do public officials conveying the President's stance have an independent duty to ascertain facts and correct them?

How is emphasizing the advantages of government press releases distinguished from creating a false impression in the public?

Institutions that explain national negotiations, present national statistics, and manage elections must speak with verifiable facts, not just public relations. 

The same applies to court rulings. Rulings are justified by explanation, not by authority. The heavier the name 'insurrection court,' the more detailed the court must explain. 

Thus far, the judiciary has applied criminal law within a very narrow scope and under strict conditions. However, this recent ruling by the insurrection court has brought areas previously classified as administrative discretionary acts into the realm of criminal law, and it is expected to cause considerable social confusion.

This is why there are calls for the Supreme Court to clearly explain the standards of illegality to the public regarding the appellate ruling, which has rendered many public officials potential criminals.

Next Episode Preview

The next episode will first verify the Presidential Office's public relations on US trade negotiations. The key question is: "Did the Presidential Office only emphasize the achievements of the negotiations while adequately explaining the conditions, burdens, lack of documents, and interpretation differences?" 

Subsequently, the National Data Agency's public relations on the National Happiness Index and the Election Commission's press releases on false absentee voting and impersonation crackdowns will be verified in sequence.

Related Articles

[Investigation Record] 30 Days of the Korea-US Tariff Negotiations... 'A Time of Lies'

https://www.hanmiilbo.kr/m/view.php?idx=3050

[Exclusive] Korea-US Trade Negotiations Marred by Deception... "Up front Turned into Cash, a Cash Show"

https://hanmiilbo.kr/news/3166

[Exclusive] "The End of the Cash Show"... October 29th, The Day the Hidden Truth Was Revealed

https://www.hanmiilbo.kr/news/3485

[Exclusive] Analysis of Korea-US Tariff Negotiations... "$350 Billion, Effectively a Donation"

https://www.hanmiilbo.kr/m/view.php?idx=708

[Exclusive] Comparison of Korean and English MOUs... "Government Announcements, Half Lies"

https://www.hanmiilbo.kr/news/3934

[Exclusive] National Data Agency's 'Life Satisfaction 80.8%' Statistic Manipulation Suspicion

https://www.hanmiilbo.kr/news/view.php?idx=7398

[Investigation] The Era of 2 Million Vulnerable Voters... The Election Commission Lacks Statistics

https://hanmiilbo.kr/news/7961

Court: "Disclose Election Commission Audit Information"... Attorney Park Ju-hyun Wins First Victory Against National Election Commission

https://www.hanmiilbo.kr/news/view.php?idx=7942