What if Lee Hwa-young had chosen betrayal? How would the game have proceeded?

If former Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young had chosen a strategy of "betrayal" (confessing to instructions and collusion with Governor Lee Jae-myung) rather than loyalty during Round 1 (the investigation and first-instance trial process), the overall landscape of the game and the fates of the players would have unfolded in the exact opposite direction of what we see now.
Reconstructing the scenario based on game theory predictions and legal mechanisms results in the following:


1. Lee Hwa-young (Player A): Significant reduction in sentence and early release
The moment the former Vice Governor chooses betrayal, his status is downgraded from "accomplice and main perpetrator (the core)" to "working-level official following a superior's instructions (the feather)."
Judicial benefits:
The prosecution's sentencing recommendation itself would have been significantly lowered, and the court would have applied "sincere reflection and cooperation with the investigation (grounds for sentencing mitigation)."
Result:
Instead of the current 7 years and 8 months in prison, he would have likely received a lighter prison sentence like former Chairman Kim Seong-tae (2 years and 6 months), who confessed first, or been released immediately on probation. It is a scenario where he would have walked out of prison proudly without needing to beg for parole.



2. Lee Jae-myung (Player B): Fatal judicial risk and possibility of a guilty verdict in the first instance
The worst-case scenario would unfold for President Lee Jae-myung. This is because Lee Hwa-young's betrayal would provide the prosecution with their most powerful weapon: "testimony from an internal accomplice."
Destruction of the "unilateral crime theory":
The core defense logic put forward by Governor Lee Jae-myung—"Lee Hwa-young committed these acts without my knowledge"—would have completely collapsed.
First-instance trial result:
Since the person who provided the money (Kim Seong-tae) and the person who coordinated the practicalities (Lee Hwa-young) would both testify that "the North Korea visit payments were made under the instructions and reporting of Governor Lee Jae-myung," there was a very high possibility that he would have been sentenced to a guilty verdict (prison term) in the first instance for charges of North Korea remittances (third-party bribery) before the presidential election.



3. Prosecution (Referee/Tracker): A perfect "Game Set"
From the prosecution's perspective, by completing the confession structure from Kim Seong-tae to Lee Hwa-young, they would have completed the perfect logic and puzzle to judicially process Governor Lee Jae-myung, the pinnacle. They could have ended the game in victory without exhausting themselves proving complex circumstantial evidence or the hidden sides of approval documents.



4. Overall flow of the game: A Nash Equilibrium of "Betrayal-Betrayal"
In the Prisoner's Dilemma, a state where both players betray each other is called a "Nash Equilibrium."

If Kim Seong-tae had betrayed first and Lee Hwa-young had also chosen betrayal, this case would have followed the typical path of power-based corruption cases where all involved parties confess to the crime and hold the superior accountable.

However, due to the fear of "political ruin (being branded a traitor)" and the expectation that "he could be rescued when the opposition party changes the administration," the former Vice Governor made the bad move of sticking to loyalty until the end. As a result, he faced a "catastrophic outcome" where only the opponent (Lee Jae-myung) benefited while he took the full blame.




Summary
If Lee Hwa-young had chosen betrayal, he would have been released with a light punishment, and there is a high possibility that Governor Lee Jae-myung would have suffered a fatal judicial blow before the presidential election and failed to seize current power. Ultimately, the former Vice Governor's choice of "loyalty" resulted in judicial survival for President Lee Jae-myung and a heavy prison sentence for himself.
This is an interesting answer, emina.