[Law & Story] Prosecutor-Media Collusion vs. Power-Media Collusion

On the afternoon of the 16th, Lee Dong-jae, former Channel A reporter, attending the first trial sentencing hearing for attempted coercion held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul.

In Choi Seok-jin's Legal Stories, we aim to cover various issues revolving around the legal community, focusing on courts and prosecutors. We plan to write somewhat freely on topics such as the legal points or prospects of major cases, behind-the-scenes stories, and untold tales that couldn't be included in news articles, without being bound by specific themes or formats. Today’s third story concerns the recent first-instance verdict in the ‘Channel A Attempted Coercion’ case.

[Asia Economy, Legal Affairs Specialist Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The first-instance verdict for the so-called ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ case, known as the ‘Channel A Attempted Coercion’ case, was delivered last week. The court acquitted former Channel A reporters Lee Dong-jae and Baek (last name withheld), who were charged with coercing former VIK (Value Investment Korea) CEO Lee Cheol by threatening him to provide information on corruption involving ruling party figures such as Yoo Si-min, chairman of the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation. Although it was acknowledged that the former reporters violated journalistic ethics by conducting inappropriate reporting, the court found it difficult to conclude that there was a specific threat of harm necessary to establish the crime of coercion under criminal law.

Immediately after the verdict, Han Dong-hoon, chief prosecutor and research fellow at the Judicial Research and Training Institute, and former Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae, who had issued investigative orders excluding former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s command rights in this case, continued their dispute on Facebook. Prosecutor Han stated that the ghost-like false agitation and conspiracy mobilized by the ruling power, some prosecutors, pro-government media, and pro-government organizations had failed, and he vowed to hold Choo Mi-ae, Choi Kang-wook, Hwang Hee-seok, whistleblower X, some MBC and KBS officials, Lee Seong-yoon, and others accountable. On the other hand, former Minister Choo argued that both the obstruction of investigation and the trial process were characteristic of prosecutor-media collusion and insisted that the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) should now actively investigate.

What happened from the first report to the acquittal?

First, let’s briefly summarize the overall progress of this case. The case first became public through MBC Newsdesk reports on March 31 last year. At that time, MBC aired two exclusive reports titled <[Exclusive] “If you want to protect your family, reveal Yoo Si-min’s misconduct”…Fearful Reporting> and <[Exclusive] “Frequent calls with OOO Chief Prosecutor”…Pressure with Recorded Conversations>, claiming that the whistleblower from the side of Lee Cheol, the former major shareholder of ShillaJen who was imprisoned for financial fraud, had come forward. The reports stated that a Channel A legal reporter contacted Yoo Si-min, who had lectured at a ShillaJen event, demanding he disclose misconduct, using methods that went beyond normal reporting and were frightening, and that the reporter leveraged connections with a well-known sitting chief prosecutor to request cooperation.

Although the term ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ was controversial later, MBC did not directly use this expression in its first report. However, the report mentioned, “If a sitting chief prosecutor had such a recorded conversation, it could be seen as inappropriate collusion between prosecutors and the media…” Shortly after the broadcast, Choi Kang-wook, leader of the Open Democratic Party, posted on Facebook, “Prosecutor-media collusion. We know all their acts. We will root out their bad habits,” marking the first use of the term. MBC also began using the term ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ from the next day’s (April 1) reports.

On April 7, the Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media (CCDM) filed a complaint against former reporter Lee and others with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. A few days later, the case was assigned to the Criminal Division 1 (Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong), and a full-scale investigation including raids began. On June 4, then Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol decided to entrust the case to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s chief meeting, and on June 19, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office decided to convene a professional investigative advisory group. However, on June 25, then Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae demoted Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, who was serving as deputy chief prosecutor at the Busan High Prosecutors’ Office, to the Judicial Research and Training Institute and ordered an inspection. On July 2, she ordered the suspension of the advisory group’s convening and issued an investigative order excluding Prosecutor General Yoon’s command rights regarding the case. This was the second time in constitutional history that a Minister of Justice issued an investigative order against the Prosecutor General.

On July 17, an arrest warrant was issued for former reporter Lee Dong-jae. The judge in charge of the warrant review, Kim Dong-hyun, chief judge of the Seoul Central District Court’s warrant division, stated in the warrant issuance reasons that “there is considerable evidence to suspect the suspect tried to threaten the victim by connecting with a high-ranking prosecutor to achieve a specific reporting purpose,” sparking controversy. The prosecution, which requested the warrant, only stated that detention was necessary to clarify the collusion with Prosecutor Han but did not exclude the possibility of Lee acting alone. The judge’s wording seemed to assume the collusion with Prosecutor Han as a fact, which was problematic.

Screenshot of KBS 9 o'clock news on July 18, 2020.

The very next day, July 18, a major false report incident occurred at KBS. KBS aired a 9 p.m. news segment titled <“Yoo Si-min-General Election Related Conversation is a ‘Smoking Gun’”…Even Yoon Seok-yeol, who was negative about the investigation, was hit>, reporting on recorded conversations between former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han at the Busan High Prosecutors’ Office. The report claimed that Lee mentioned the need to investigate Yoo Si-min related to the general election, suggesting that if the opposition won, Prosecutor General Yoon would gain strength, and that Prosecutor Han encouraged and offered help. Immediately after the broadcast, Prosecutor Han and Lee’s side took legal action, and KBS admitted the report was inaccurate, stating “facts that were not precisely confirmed were expressed definitively,” effectively acknowledging the false report. Particularly, rumors circulated that the information source was a senior official at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, leading to criticism that the core issue was not ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ but ‘power-media collusion.’ Even within KBS, controversy arose over ‘commissioned reporting’ by a public opinion manipulation broker, but the identity of the person who provided such distorted investigative information to KBS remains unknown.

Following KBS’s report, MBC continued reporting on the Busan High Prosecutors’ Office recordings the next day. Lee’s side released the full transcript on July 21 and the audio file on July 22. The transcript included Prosecutor Han responding to Lee’s mention of writing a letter to imprisoned former CEO Lee Cheol with “If you get caught doing that, so be it,” but when Lee brought up Yoo Si-min in relation to the ShillaJen investigation, Han said, “I don’t know what Yoo Si-min did or where. He’s not even a politician, so it’s not a political investigation.” When Lee mentioned Yoo’s departure from the country, Han replied, “I’m not interested. His true nature has long been revealed.” Reviewing the entire transcript, it was difficult to conclude that Prosecutor Han conspired with Lee to threaten Lee Cheol to find investigative clues.

On July 24, the Prosecutors’ Investigation Deliberation Committee, composed of external experts, convened. Of the 15 members, 12 recommended continuing the investigation of former reporter Lee, and 9 supported indictment. Conversely, for Prosecutor Han, 10 members recommended stopping the investigation, and 11 recommended non-prosecution. However, the investigation team led by then Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon ignored the committee’s opinions and did not halt the investigation into Prosecutor Han.

On May 21, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong and Chief Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon appeared side by side at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul. On that day, Chief Prosecutor Han appeared as a witness in the trial concerning Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong's charge of abuse of authority.

Contrary to claims of having secured ‘multiple key pieces of evidence,’ then team leader Jeong Jin-woong personally attempted to seize Prosecutor Han’s mobile phone at the Judicial Research and Training Institute on July 29 to obtain additional evidence, during which an ‘official assault’ incident occurred. However, former Minister Choo Mi-ae excluded Jeong, who was under investigation as a suspect for assault during official duties, from his position and conducted an inspection but faced criticism for promoting him to deputy chief prosecutor of Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office in the mid-level prosecutor reshuffle at the end of August. Eventually, Jeong was indicted on October 27 for official assault under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, was sentenced to one year in prison at the July 9 sentencing hearing this year, and awaits the sentencing trial scheduled for August 12. In the recent large-scale mid-level prosecutor reshuffle, Minister Park Beom-gye also horizontally transferred Jeong, still a defendant, to deputy chief prosecutor of Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office without excluding him from duty.

On November 24 last year, former Minister Choo filed disciplinary charges against former Prosecutor General Yoon, citing ‘obstruction of inspection and investigation to protect associates related to the Channel A case’ as one of Yoon’s misconduct allegations.

On August 5, the prosecution indicted former reporters Lee and Baek on charges of attempted coercion, with Lee detained and Baek released on bail. However, the prosecution failed to name Prosecutor Han as a co-conspirator in the indictment. Subsequently, the newly formed investigation team submitted multiple requests for non-prosecution approval for Prosecutor Han to former Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon, who repeatedly refused approval, citing failure to conduct forensic analysis on Han’s mobile phone. Ultimately, former First Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim Wook-joon, who opposed Prosecutor Lee over Han’s non-prosecution, resigned in protest in December, demanding an immediate halt to measures threatening the prosecution’s political neutrality and existence. His successor, former First Deputy Chief Prosecutor Na Byung-hoon, was demoted to Suwon High Prosecutors’ Office after four months and left the prosecution. Former Criminal Division 1 Chief Byun Pil-geon, who succeeded Jeong Jin-woong in the investigation, was recently demoted to Human Rights Protection Officer at Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office.

Former reporter Lee was released on bail on February 3 this year, 204 days after detention, one day before the detention period expired. At the May 14 sentencing hearing, the prosecution sought 1 year and 6 months imprisonment for Lee and 10 months for Baek. On July 16, the court acquitted both former reporters Lee and Baek.

First-instance court: “No threat of harm. Uncertain if whistleblower conveyed message”

Judge Hong Chang-woo of the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 1 closely analyzed the prosecution’s allegations of attempted coercion, including five letters sent by former reporter Lee to former CEO Lee Cheol and conversations during three meetings with whistleblower Ji (last name withheld). The court also examined whether the message was properly conveyed to Lee Cheol through whistleblower Ji.

The court acquitted former reporters Lee and Baek, citing ‘lack of proof of criminal facts.’

The crime of coercion under Article 324 of the Criminal Act involves obstructing the exercise of rights or compelling someone to do an act they are not obliged to do through violence or threats.

To establish coercion, there must be a result where rights are obstructed or an unrequired act is done due to violence or threats. If no result occurs or if the causal link between violence/threats and the result is absent, attempted coercion is considered. In this case, since former CEO Lee’s side ultimately rejected the reporters’ proposal, attempted coercion was at issue.

The court first judged that former reporter Lee’s demand to former CEO Lee Cheol was for an act he was not legally obliged to perform, as individuals not subject to information disclosure requests have no legal duty to cooperate with media inquiries. However, the court stated, “The media, as a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, has the right to freely access sources and publish gathered information. Except in special cases, media requests to individuals are essentially demands for ‘acts not legally required.’ Therefore, even if a journalist’s conduct violates journalistic ethics or is inappropriate, criminal punishment under coercion law must be carefully considered to avoid restricting constitutional freedom of the press.”

Coercion can also be established if threats are made through a third party. However, Supreme Court precedents hold that threats are recognized only if the person making the threat explicitly or implicitly behaves in a way that makes the victim believe the third party is under their control or influence, or if the victim perceives the third party’s actions as subject to the threatener’s will. Conversely, if such explicit or implicit behavior is absent and the victim does not have such perception, even if the victim feels fear, coercion is denied. Moreover, for attempted coercion to be established, the underlying crime of coercion must be complete.

In this case, the prosecution argued that former reporter Lee threatened harm to former CEO Lee or his family through the prosecution if he did not comply. However, the court found it difficult to see a specific threat of harm. Statements that the ongoing investigation might increase Lee’s sentence or that family members might be punished or assets seized could cause anxiety but are not specific investigative information linked to the prosecution. Therefore, it was hard to interpret these as explicit or implicit threats that the reporter would influence the prosecution to punish Lee severely if he did not cooperate.

In other words, the court concluded that former reporter Lee did not threaten, “If you don’t cooperate with me, I will move the prosecution to conduct a strong investigation against Lee Cheol,” but rather said, “If you don’t cooperate, the ongoing prosecution might expand the investigation to your family,” or “If you cooperate, I can ask the prosecution for leniency.” Thus, it was not a threat of harm involving exerting influence over the prosecution. Interpreting “cooperate and receive leniency” as “non-cooperation leads to severe punishment via prosecution” is an overly broad interpretation unfavorable to the defendants.

The court also judged that former reporter Lee’s statement to whistleblower Ji at their first meeting, “(If you don’t provide the tip) you will die,” was ambiguous but was a response to Ji’s prior comment suggesting that Lee Cheol might provide information if promised help or leniency through prosecution. Showing or playing recorded conversations was at Ji’s request, and considering this as a threat would mean the victim’s representative coerced the victim, which contradicts common sense and experience.

Furthermore, the court found that whistleblower Ji, acting as former CEO Lee’s representative, likely did not properly convey the reporter’s message. Based on Lee Cheol’s statements and other witnesses’ testimonies, the court stated, “The core message was that providing corruption information on figures like Yoo Si-min would help Lee Cheol receive leniency through prosecution. However, this message does not seem to have been properly conveyed to Lee Cheol. Instead, Lee Cheol likely interpreted it as ‘If you don’t provide corruption information, you will be punished more severely through prosecution.’”

The court concluded, “This was due to distortion by intermediary Ji, so the defendants cannot be held responsible for attempted coercion.”

However, before announcing the verdict, the court asked the defendants to stand and gave a ‘word of caution,’ stating, “The defendants’ actions clearly violated journalistic ethics and deserve moral condemnation.”

But the court emphasized, “Freedom of the press is the last bastion protecting democracy in our society. Punishing journalists’ conduct during reporting must be judged very cautiously and strictly. The verdict does not justify or exonerate the defendants’ wrongdoing, which the defendants should keep in mind.”

Han Dong-hoon: “Ghost-like false agitation and conspiracy failed” vs. Choo Mi-ae: “Investigation obstruction and trial process were collusive”

On the 19th, former Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae is presenting the vision for Daegu and Gyeongbuk at the Daegu City Council.

Immediately after the acquittal of former reporter Lee Dong-jae, Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon issued a statement saying, “For the past year and a half, the ghost-like false agitation, conspiracy, and illegal abuse of public authority called ‘prosecutor-media collusion,’ mobilized by the ruling power, some prosecutors, pro-government media, pro-government organizations, and pro-government intellectuals, have thoroughly failed,” and “I believe it was retaliation for investigations into power corruption such as the Cho Kuk investigation.”

He said, “This verdict shows that the flame of justice and common sense still remains in society and that wrongs are being corrected,” and “Now is the time to hold those responsible for the false agitation, conspiracy, and illegal use of public authority.”

He added, “I will hold Choo Mi-ae, Choi Kang-wook, Hwang Hee-seok, MBC, so-called ‘Whistleblower X,’ Han Sang-hyuk, CCDM, Yoo Si-min, some KBS officials, Lee Seong-yoon, Lee Jeong-hyun, Shin Sung-sik, and some prosecutors accountable,” and “I will take necessary measures.”

Prosecutor Han, who was demoted multiple times and assaulted during raids after the investigation committee recommended stopping the investigation, even said, “I have suffered two raids, official assault, four personnel retaliations, and ostracism,” hinting at strong legal action.

Former Minister Choo Mi-ae also expressed her stance on the acquittal via Facebook last weekend.

She said, “The Channel A prosecutor-media collusion case was collusive in both investigation obstruction and trial progress,” and “Since it was the result of prosecutor-media collusion from start to finish, reform has become more urgent.”

She described Prosecutor Han as a ‘great evil’ and claimed, “There was persistent obstruction of inspection and investigation by the Prosecutor General.” She also criticized, “After seizing Prosecutor Han’s mobile phone, the prosecution did not know the password and thus did not use the key evidence in the investigation or trial.”

She pointed out that Channel A’s internal investigation report was not admitted as evidence due to the former reporter’s refusal, and Channel A’s absence in court led to the report being treated as expert evidence and not used to prove the charges, calling it “perfect trial obstruction by prosecutor-media collusion.”

She added, “The pathetic spectacle where truth cannot prevail due to perfect obstruction by the prosecution in investigation and trial was predictable from the start,” and “Now the CIO must actively investigate. We will not tolerate this situation where judicial justice is missing.”

Given that former Minister Choo had defined the case as ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ implicating Prosecutor Han as a co-conspirator from the beginning and filed disciplinary charges against former Prosecutor General Yoon for obstructing the investigation to protect Han, it was expected she would find it hard to accept the verdict. However, her blanket criticism of the court’s ruling as ‘collusive’ seems somewhat excessive.

Especially, her criticism of the prosecution’s poor investigation and trial, despite the investigation being conducted under the leadership of Lee Seong-yoon, classified as pro-government, who was then Seoul Central District Prosecutor General, and the investigation team’s chief and Criminal Division 1 chief being prosecutors appointed by Choo herself, is difficult to accept.

Prosecutor Han also responded to former Minister Choo’s Facebook post.

He first pointed out, “Choo Mi-ae, who should be held responsible for power-media collusion conspiracy and illegal disclosure of investigation status, wrote a long post denying the prosecutor-media collusion frame after the judiciary acquitted the reporters.”

He continued, “This investigation and trial were conducted by prosecutors handpicked by Choo, who issued the second-ever investigative order excluding the Prosecutor General, and the investigation team completely ignored the Prosecutor General. Yet, all reporters were acquitted, and now she is making absurd claims of ‘trial obstruction by prosecutor-media collusion.’”

Meanwhile, Prosecutor Han strongly criticized the positions of CCDM and MBC, who filed complaints against former reporter Lee after his acquittal.

On the day after the acquittal, July 17, CCDM issued a statement titled , saying, “From the start, confusion in the investigation was anticipated due to Channel A’s organizational evidence destruction and scapegoating, the prosecution’s protection of its own, and some media’s distortion of the core issue. Ultimately, the core issue of improper collusion between prosecution and media evaporated, leaving only a simple journalistic ethics violation.”

CCDM noted the court’s pointed criticism of journalistic ethics violations despite acquitting the defendants and emphasized, “We regret that the attempted coercion charge, a major allegation in the prosecutor-media collusion case, did not lead to judicial punishment, but the court clearly pointed out the ethics violations and stressed that the verdict does not justify or exonerate former reporter Lee and others.”

They added, “However, it is outrageous that the parties are using the acquittal as an excuse to claim exoneration and make sophistries.”

CCDM also called out Prosecutor Han, saying, “Prosecutor Han, who called the case ‘ghost-like false agitation and conspiracy, illegal abuse of public authority’ and vowed to hold CCDM, MBC, and others accountable, should cooperate with the prosecution and prove his claims with evidence.”

Prosecutor Han responded again with a statement, saying, “CCDM’s contrasting attitudes toward Channel A’s Lee Dong-jae and MBC’s Yang (last name withheld), who impersonated police, and their shameless continued use of the term ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ (which is defamation), and the weak investigation by prosecutors Lee Seong-yoon and Jeong Jin-woong, who used official assault, leading to acquittal, are pitiful excuses.”

He said, “CCDM lacks democracy, media, and citizens, and seems to be a powerful talent pool allied with power. CCDM must now reveal what collusion and cooperation it had with ruling party figures in creating the prosecutor-media collusion frame.”

Prosecutor Han also strongly criticized MBC, which first reported the case.

On July 17, MBC Newsdesk claimed, “MBC’s first report only exposed a Channel A reporter’s inappropriate reporting methods. The spread of the term ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ was due to a politician’s SNS post that night.” They accused the Chosun Ilbo of distorting facts by saying MBC labeled the case ‘prosecutor-media collusion.’

In response, Chosun Ilbo argued that although MBC did not use the term ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ in its first report on March 31 last year, the term was first used by Choi Kang-wook on SNS that night, and MBC used it from April 1 onward in follow-up reports. MBC also titled its award application to the Korea Journalists Association as ‘Channel A Prosecutor-Media Collusion Suspicion,’ and its reporter mentioned the term multiple times in acceptance speeches. MBC President Park Sung-je also mentioned ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ on Facebook on August 5 last year, rebutting MBC’s claim.

Prosecutor Han said, “After Lee’s acquittal, MBC pretended on Newsdesk that they never claimed the prosecutor-media collusion frame and now deny it. It’s absurd and sad how they underestimate the public’s memory.”

He also said, “MBC, accused of illegal hidden camera filming, did not submit the footage and reversed its promise to release whistleblower X’s recordings. Whistleblower X persistently induced statements against me, and MBC colluded with X in this inducement,” and “MBC must reveal why and through whom they contacted whistleblower X from early February and cooperate with investigations exposing power-criminal-media collusion.”

Remaining tasks...

More than a year after MBC’s first report, former reporters Lee and others were acquitted, concluding from a legal perspective whether their actions constitute attempted coercion under criminal law. Although the possibility of reversal in the appellate or Supreme Court cannot be completely ruled out, given the first-instance court’s reasoning that it is difficult to see the ‘threat of harm’ necessary for coercion, the chance of reversal seems low.

As the court noted, the reporters’ conduct violated journalistic ethics and deserves moral condemnation, but the prosecutor-media collusion frame alleging that Prosecutor Han conspired with former reporter Lee to threaten former CEO Lee Cheol to extract corruption information on Yoo Si-min and others has collapsed. The court clearly stated that if former CEO Lee perceived the message as coercion, it was due to distortion by intermediary whistleblower Ji.

Therefore, statements by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong, who said “We have secured multiple key pieces of evidence approaching the substantial truth of prosecutor-media collusion,” former Minister Choo, who said “There is more than enough evidence,” and Judge Kim Dong-hyun, who cited “considerable evidence” in the warrant issuance, now seem less credible given that Prosecutor Han’s indictment is effectively off the table.

Many events occurred during the year-long investigation and trial.

Prosecutor Han was demoted, and former Criminal Division 1 Chief Jeong Jin-woong, who assaulted Han during a raid and was indicted, was promoted to deputy chief prosecutor of Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office. After Minister Park Beom-gye’s appointment, Han was not reinstated, while Jeong was horizontally transferred to Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office.

The investigation team leaders who repeatedly submitted non-prosecution requests for Han to former Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon were all demoted or resigned in retaliation. Meanwhile, former Prosecutor Lee, indicted for ‘investigation interference’ in the Kim Hak-ui illegal deportation case, was promoted to Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office chief.

Former Minister Choo, who excluded former Prosecutor General Yoon from duty and filed disciplinary charges, was effectively dismissed after losing administrative court injunction cases but ran as a ruling party presidential candidate. She disparaged the court ruling as ‘collusive’ and called for the CIO to investigate.

Several related lawsuits and investigations are ongoing but progressing slowly. Prosecutor Han has also filed civil lawsuits.

The most pressing question is whether Prosecutor General Kim Oh-soo and Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Jeong-soo will close the case by approving non-prosecution for Prosecutor Han. Given the circumstances, non-prosecution seems appropriate, but the repercussions will be significant, posing a burden for both.

Former Minister Choo, now a ruling party presidential candidate, will face criticism for her investigative orders and disciplinary charges against former Prosecutor General Yoon. Conversely, Yoon, who resigned amid unfair disciplinary actions and investigation obstruction, will gain strength. With presidential candidates’ support fluctuating, this decision could damage the ruling party candidate and legitimize the leading opposition candidate’s early resignation.

Non-prosecution approval also burdens Seoul High Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-woong, and Minister Park Beom-gye, who delayed Han’s reinstatement.

Whistleblower Ji, Choi Kang-wook, and former Human Rights Bureau Chief Hwang Hee-seok are also under investigation for obstruction of business and defamation for over a year.

From the left, a Facebook capture of Hwang Hee-seok, Supreme Council Member of the Open Democratic Party, released through the media; a Facebook capture of Ji Mo, the whistleblower of the Channel A incident who shared Hwang Hee-seok's Facebook post; and a Facebook capture of Choi Kang-wook, leader of the Open Democratic Party.

Before MBC’s first report on March 31 last year, Hwang Hee-seok, then Open Democratic Party Supreme Council member, shared a photo with party leader Choi Kang-wook on Facebook, saying, “Now the two of us are entering operation.” Thirty minutes later, Hwang’s post was shared on whistleblower Ji’s Facebook with the comment, “Let’s destroy them! Yoon Seok-yeol’s prosecution!!” A few days later, Choi posted on Facebook a summary of former reporter Lee’s statements in letters and recordings, claiming Lee coerced former CEO Lee Cheol to testify that he gave money to Yoo Si-min.

In April-May last year, the civic group ‘Action to Establish Rule of Law’ (Beopse-ryeon) filed complaints against them, arguing that Choi’s Facebook post claiming Lee told Lee Cheol, “Even if it’s not true, say you gave money to Yoo Si-min to survive,” was mostly false, and that Hwang’s post about “operation” and Ji’s sharing with “Let’s destroy them!” showed conspiracy to defame and obstruct Lee.

According to the verdict, one of former CEO Lee’s lawyers proposed whistleblower Ji, who has multiple convictions including fraud and embezzlement, to meet former reporter Lee as Lee’s representative. The lawyer had maintained contact with Ji after securing a not guilty verdict in Ji’s 2016 fraud case appeals.

Why MBC could secretly film Ji meeting Lee, and why Hwang and Choi spoke of ‘operation’ before MBC’s first report, remain unclear and difficult to uncover.

Regarding KBS’s false report, Prosecutor Han filed a defamation complaint against KBS officials and investigators with the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office in July last year, and the investigation is ongoing.

While MBC, former Minister Choo, and others alleged ‘prosecutor-media collusion’ between former reporter Lee and Prosecutor Han, the pro-government-leaning MBC, KBS, Choi, and whistleblower Ji have been accused of ‘power-media collusion’ or ‘political-media collusion.’

It remains unclear whether Choi and others, after receiving whistleblower Ji’s tip about Lee’s improper reporting, suspected collusion with Prosecutor Han and jointly exposed it with Ji and MBC, or if from the start they targeted Prosecutor Han, a close associate of former Prosecutor General Yoon, to damage Yoon and justify prosecution reform, as Hwang said, by conducting an ‘operation.’

However, under Minister Park Beom-gye, Prosecutor General Kim Oh-soo, Seoul High Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon, Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Jeong-soo, and Seoul Southern District Prosecutor Shim Jae-cheol, thorough investigations into power-media collusion allegations seem practically difficult.