The Democratic Party of Korea, which took a breather, will start the impeachment properly.

- Following the dismissal of the impeachment of Lee Sang-min, the Minister of Public Administration and Security, and the suspension of his duties due to the impeachment of Lee Jin-sook, the prosecutor including Lee Chang-soo, the chief prosecutor of the District Prosecutors' Office, Kim In-seop has been sentenced to five years in prison for the 'suspicious development of Baekhyun-dong', and 'Referring Lee Jae-myung 11 times' in the ruling.Lee Jae-myung also linked to cases such as violation of the Election Act.

[News FM Lee Ik-seon Choi Soo-young Issue & People]

□ Broadcast date and time: November 28, 2024 (Thursday)
□ Host: Lee Ik-seon, Choi Soo-young
□ Performers: Lawyer Kang Jeon-ae, Lawyer Jang Yoon-mi

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information.

◆Choi Soo-young: Kim In-seop, former CEO of Korea Housing Technology, who was pointed out as a rental lobbyist for Baekhyun-dong's alleged development preferential treatment, has been sentenced to five years in prison. Lawyer Kang, please explain what it's about.

■ Kang Kyung-ae: First of all, in the case of Kim In-seop, he is known to have been close to Lee Jae-myung even before he challenged Seongnam Mayor. It is said that they have been close to each other since about 2005 while doing civic movements. So in 2006, he ran for mayor of Seongnam and failed, and Kim In-seop was the chairman of the election committee, and in 2014, when he opened the election office, it was Kim In-seop who signed the lease contract for the election camp. However, Kim In-seop is also connected to the recent Public Official Election Act case among the things that Lee Jae-myung did within his authority when he became mayor of Seongnam at the time. There was a development of Baekhyun-dong. However, the developer of Baekhyun-dong is Jeong Baul, and the continuous lack of permission from Seongnam City in the process of repurposing is when Kim In-seop is hired as a lobbyist. As soon as Kim In-seop comes in, Seongnam City will not be able to change its use, but it will be upgraded from natural green areas to semi-residential areas. So it became a problem at the time in this area. So, Chairman Lee Jae-myung recently said that Baekhyun-dong's repurposing was changed because he was threatened by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Park Geun Hye government, because this was pointed out. Isn't it repurposed because some close aide came in as a lobbyist? When I was asked this question, I said, "It's not the problem of the people around me, it's just that there was pressure from the Park Geun Hye government," but it's now found guilty. It's in the same vein. So, this person was already in court custody after receiving a five-year prison sentence and an additional 6.3 billion won. But this person's relationship in Baekhyun-dong's development process has been included in the first and second trial rulings, and there's a person named Jeong Jin-sang who said CEO Lee Jae-myung is a close aide. At that time, this person was in Seongnam City as a fishmonger, and Jeong Jin-sang, the head of Seongnam City's urban planning team, asked him to take good care of Kim In-seop's case, and Lee Jae-myung was mentioned in Kim In-seop's ruling. In addition, Kim In-seop and Lee Jae-myung and Jeong Jin-sang are all aware that Seongnam city officials have a special relationship. So, in the case of the Public Official Election Act last time, the ruling said that in the end, Baekhyun-dong's repurposing, it was not a threat from the Park Geun Hye government, but that the mayor of Seongnam, Seongnam City, properly repurposed the report. In the end, there was a guilty verdict, and there was a case in which CEO Lee Jae-myung was indicted again due to the breach of trust in the Baekhyun-dong case. However, this case has been merged with the Daejang-dong and Seongnam FC cases, so we haven't even started hearing the Baekhyun-dong case yet. However, even here, the breach of trust seems to have increased the likelihood that Lee Jae-myung, the mayor of Seongnam at the time, will be responsible for this as the final approval authority.

◇Lee Ik-seon: From the perspective of CEO Lee Jae-myung, it would be very close to each other. As you all know, in the first trial of the Public Official Election Act, each of them was found innocent in the first trial of a perjury teacher in prison. If the prison sentence of the Public Official Election Act is confirmed at the appeal trial and the final trial, the right to run for the next presidential election will be restricted, right?

□Jang Yoon-mi: That's right. Because if there are two rulings in the first trial and this is recognized as it is until the Supreme Court of Appeals, as you said, acquittal is no longer a problem, and violations of the Public Official Election Act are based on 1 million won for violators of the election law. So, it is based on 1 million won and now that the suspended sentence of imprisonment has been issued, so the deadline for the right to run for election is 10 years under the Election Act. Then, the right to run for election has some restrictions on being able to run, so for the Democratic Party, there is a homework that must be overturned, especially in the appeal of the Public Official Election Act. There is a problem with the presidential candidate, but as it continues to come out, there is a part where 43.4 billion won is linked to the preservation of election expenses, so there is probably no choice but to fight legally in this part.

■ Kang Kyung-ae: As mentioned earlier, Kim In-seop's ruling is indicted on the charges that Lee Jae-myung caused 20 billion won in damages to Seongnam Urban Development Corporation and drove 135.6 billion won in profits to private companies in connection with the Baekhyun-dong case, but we don't know when the ruling will come out. So, since Daejang-dong, Seongnam FC, and Baekhyun-dong are merged into three very complex cases, it is a little questionable in the legal community whether going to the Supreme Court before the next presidential election, when the first trial ruling may come out. It's such a complicated case, but the Public Official Election Act now includes this Baekhyun-dong case, and Kim In-seop's Supreme Court ruling will be a little disadvantageous. I've already told you. The
Public Office Election Act originally requires the first trial to be completed within 6 months and the appeals court to be completed within 3 months, but the first trial took over 2 years now. This is why the appeals court seems to be proceeding quickly because the Supreme Court has a position to adhere to the 633 principle that the appeals court should proceed quickly. So, the legal community believes that the appeals court and the Supreme Court will not be finished in three to six months, but if possible, it will be completed by the end of next year. In the process, if the first trial came out as a fine, it could be partially cut, but in reality, it is very difficult to lower it to a fine rather than a prison sentence at the appeal trial and lower it to less than 1 million won. As for Baekhyun-dong, Kim In-seop's Supreme Court ruling today means that there is some pressure on CEO Lee Jae-myung.

◆Choi Soo-young: A while ago, lawyer Jang said that the Democratic Party of Korea has no choice but to stop it, but one of the things he will do with all his might is to propose an amendment to the election law. So what does the Democratic Party want to revise?

□Jang Yoon-mi: First of all, I think there is a problem that this is not the Democratic Party's party, but lawmaker Park Hee-seung, a former judge, needs to revise the Public Official Election Act. So, the other way is to delete the crime of publicizing false information, and the invalidity of Lee's election is now 1 million won. Compared to other crimes, a fine of 1 million won is sentenced to 1 million won when it is a first-time offender or a little less likely to be criticized. And this is on the rise. But since the election law is only at 1 million won, even if I talk to the judges in the court, for example, it's 3 million won, which is so different from the normal crime fine of 3 million won. Because he leaves the office of the governor and the head of the district office, the court has no choice but to think about it based on 1 million won. So, there is a sense of the question of whether it is reasonable, so let's raise it up and say about 10 million won. The reason why
people point out that this is another problem is that if there is one axis of legislation to protect representative Lee Jae-myung, it is retroactive. Basically, it is judged by law at the time of the act, but it will be implemented as an additional provision. The advantage for the defendant is that even if it is applied retroactively to the defendant, it does not harm legal stability. So they're asking if they're going to do that and try to exempt this, but I think that's a scenario that went too far.

■ Kang Kyung-ae: But the fact that the bill is being proposed like this itself is actually used a lot from the perspective of the lawyers of the defendants who are prosecuted by using the Public Official Election Act. In the opinion and in the court, there are realistically parts that I have to take into account that there is a law at the time of the trial and the act, but this could be revised later. That's why I'm not sure if the bill itself will be passed, but don't fix it under the persimmon tree. That's what they say. The timing, too. In terms of these things, it is very difficult to come out with a fine of less than 1 million won at the appeal trial when the prison sentence comes out in the first trial. I've already told you. Therefore, I would like to say that it is a pity that each member of the National Assembly is a constitutional institution, and that such legislation is proposed so that even if a fine of about 10 million won is issued at the appeal trial.

◇Lee Ik-seon: Meanwhile, Justice Minister Park Sung-jae clashed with opposition lawmakers yesterday, saying, "I'd rather be fired." All 33 senior prosecutors at the Central District Prosecutors' Office have issued a statement and are collectively protesting the impeachment of three prosecutors, including Lee Chang-soo, the chief of the Central District Prosecutors' Office, which is being pursued by the Democratic Party. Why is the Democratic Party impeaching these three prosecutors?

□Jang Yoon-mi: We need to see exactly what kind of test it is. These are the prosecutors who were involved in the Deutsche Motors case of Mrs. Kim Gun-hee. Basically, such stock price manipulation cases are quite difficult to prove as prosecutors and investigative agencies. It's all too natural to call out many parties and search and seizure, but it's just essential to collect basic data. However, Mrs. Kim Gun-hee has never raided it. We even watch a lot of briefings for four and a half hours, but we don't see a case of briefing for four and a half hours without prosecution. But the prosecutor who briefed at that time told reporters that he had raided it, but the next day, the head of the Central District Prosecutors' Office said it was not true at the National Assembly. Then, in that regard, I think it is right to be judged by the judiciary if there is a problem, whether it is a conservative politician or a liberal politician. That's fairness and common sense and law and principles, but there's a lot of awareness of the problem that it's tied. The high public opinion of the independent counsel is that the Democratic Party of Korea recognizes that the people share this to some extent, so it is trying to solve this in the direction of prosecutor impeachment.

■ Kang Kyung-ae: The Democratic Party of Korea impeached Lee Chang-soo, the 4th deputy chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and Choi Jae-hoon, the 2nd deputy chief of the anti-corruption department. Although it is the authority of the National Assembly to prosecute impeachment now, impeachment is cited only when there is a clear violation of the Constitution and laws. When the impeachment motion is proposed and the National Assembly has probably voted alone, the job is suspended while in the Constitutional Court. Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Standards Commission, was there a movement like impeachment against the members of the Korea Communications Standards Commission before that, and was there a case like resigning right before that? Many of you may remember that, but the impeachment of Lee Sang-min, the Minister of Public Administration and Security, was actually carried out, and the Constitutional Court rejected it as a consensus opinion. However, the Democratic Party of Korea has not made any apology or expressed any position, and now it is the impeachment of the prosecutors. At first, even the prosecutor general talked about impeachment, but in the case of the prosecutor general, he said that he excluded that part because he had no command over the Deutsche Motors case. This is a very political dispute, and three of them will be suspended, which is what the prosecutors feel very pressured about the prosecutors. So, as a result, there were 33 managers at the Central District Prosecutors' Office yesterday. All 33 department heads should be suspended over prosecutors' impeachment proceedings. We've made these statements now, but 12 people have tried to impeach prosecutors for a year now. There may be pressure on the court to impeach these parts and if representative Lee Jae-myung is convicted. When Representative Lee Jae-myung sentenced on the 15th, he also protested in front of the court to suppress the prosecution. I think these things continue too much.

◆Choi Soo-young: Let me ask you this briefly, too. The National Assembly will soon propose a revision to the rules on the recommendation of candidates for the permanent special prosecution, which the Democratic Party of Korea announced at the plenary session at 2 p.m. The main point is that the revision excludes the recommendation of the ruling party to investigations involving the president or the president's family anyway, but the ruling and opposition parties have not agreed on this, so what is the background of posting it like this?

□Jang Yoon-mi: First of all, the president is vetoing the special prosecution for the third time only against First Lady Kim Gun-hee, right? Then it's very exhausting that the veto phase continues. It's not good for the people either. Then, the president cannot veto the permanent special prosecution system. And so common sense is that even during former President Park Geun Hye, for example, the prosecutor at the time of the Yoon Suk Yeol investigated, and the opposition party alone recommended it. If the special prosecutor does so, this is the party involved in the permanent special prosecution. The family of the president's spouse, the president's family, then the question of whether it is right to recommend it by the ruling camp seems to be in the revision of the Special Prosecutor's Permanent Special Prosecutor Act.

■ Kang Kyung-ae: In the end, he will continue to conduct a permanent special investigation for the remaining two and a half years of the president's term. So, aren't you saying that you will raise only two suspicions about Kim Gun-hee with the current special prosecution bill and do the rest as a permanent special prosecutor? I'll cut this and continue little by little. And when it comes to recommending an independent counsel in the process, the ruling party will continue to do nothing to suit the taste of the opposition, which is very unfortunate that there is no way the ruling party can stop it under the current law. However, I think the people will look at this and judge it.

◇Lee Ik-seon: With lawyer Jang Kang, lawyer Jang Yoon-mi, and lawyer Kang Jeon-ae. Thank you for your efforts.