[Reporter’s Notebook] Regret Over the Daejang-dong National Assembly Inspection

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] On the 1st, the 2021 National Assembly inspection by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee began, starting with the Supreme Court.

Every year, the judiciary and prosecution have been involved in investigations or trials that attract public interest, so the Legislation and Judiciary Committee's inspection has always received more attention than other standing committees' inspections.

This year is no exception. With the presidential election just five months away, investigations are underway by both the prosecution and the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Division (Gongu-cheo) into allegations involving the leading presidential candidates from both ruling and opposition parties.

Regarding the 'Daejang-dong Development Project Favoritism' allegations involving Gyeonggi Province Governor Lee Jae-myung, the prosecution has formed a dedicated investigation team and has just begun the investigation. Meanwhile, the 'Report-for-Prosecution' allegations involving former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol are being actively investigated by Gongu-cheo, which has taken over the case filed with the prosecution. Gongu-cheo will face its first inspection since its launch on the 12th.

The Supreme Court inspection held on the 1st attracted particular attention. Several legal professionals with close ties to Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, who is at the center of the 'Daejang-dong' allegations, appeared. A representative figure is former Supreme Court Justice Kwon Soon-il, who led the acquittal ruling in Governor Lee’s Public Official Election Act violation trial.

Moreover, it was revealed just before the inspection through media reports that Kwon, who received large advisory fees and salaries from Hwacheon Daeyu immediately after retirement, met separately with Kim at his office in June and July last year when Lee’s appeal case was referred to the Supreme Court's full bench and acquitted, intensifying suspicions. As a result, members from both ruling and opposition parties were expected to focus intense scrutiny on Kwon’s suspicious behavior.

However, the inspection on the 1st fell short of expectations.

While ruling party lawmakers appeared preoccupied with defending themselves as if forgetting their mission as representatives of the people and the meaning and function of the inspection, opposition lawmakers’ attacks were also not sharp.

Before the inspection, lawmakers can request various materials not only from the inspected institutions but also from other state agencies, and can collect multiple tips through their parties. Ideally, regarding the highly publicized 'Daejang-dong' allegations, they could present new facts or evidence to pressure the inspected institutions or opposing parties and help satisfy the public’s curiosity.

However, since the investigation has just begun, if it is realistically difficult to present new facts or evidence, at the very least, lawmakers should use their allotted questioning time to ask questions that the public truly wants to know and elicit meaningful answers from the inspected institutions.

Yet, during the Supreme Court inspection on the 1st, rather than presenting new facts or asking sharp questions that would embarrass the other side, lawmakers repeatedly wasted precious questioning time by shouting emotionally or listing unfavorable allegations against the opposing presidential candidates.

Deputy Chief of the Court Administration Office Kim Sang-hwan (Supreme Court Justice) clearly stated that the deliberation process under the Court Organization Act is confidential, so he could not disclose the contents of the deliberations or the review reports by judicial researchers during Governor Lee’s trial. Nevertheless, opposition lawmakers repeatedly asked the same questions, forcing the same answers to be given, which was difficult to understand.

The ruling party lawmakers’ 'judge surveillance' card, brought out as a counterattack against the 'Daejang-dong' allegations, was also disappointing.

From the beginning of the inspection, ruling party lawmakers raised the issue of 'judge surveillance,' which was the reason for former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol’s disciplinary action, and asked Deputy Chief Kim, "What do you think about this?" Kim replied, on the premise that it was his personal opinion and that he could not represent all judges, "I think it exceeded the level of information needed to understand who a judge is." However, as the ruling party lawmakers repeated the same question, he stated, "It is difficult to answer because the trial is currently ongoing."

The 'trial panel tendency analysis document' prepared by the prosecution during former Prosecutor General Yoon’s tenure was labeled as the 'judge surveillance document' by former Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae.

Of course, it is not yet clear whether the document was created by prosecutors in charge of maintaining the prosecution to help secure guilty verdicts by referring to the tendencies and past rulings of major trial panels, or whether it was truly an illegal surveillance of judges by the prosecution.

However, if the contents of the document were indeed information collected through surveillance of judges, the prosecutor who prepared the document or the person responsible, former Prosecutor General Yoon, would have already faced criminal punishment for illegal surveillance. If the 'judge surveillance' was clear as the first reason for disciplinary action requested by former Minister Choo against Yoon, the courts would not have ruled twice in favor of Yoon in related disciplinary lawsuits.

Above all, former Minister Choo, who loudly raised the 'judge surveillance' issue, was dismissed after successive defeats in disciplinary trials against former Prosecutor General Yoon.

Yet, at the Supreme Court inspection on the 1st, ruling party lawmakers again brought up the 'judge surveillance' issue, listing the contents of the document one by one and asking Deputy Chief Kim, "What do you think?" This appeared to be a defensive tactic to avoid opposition attacks focused on the 'Daejang-dong' allegations. The 'judge surveillance' issue was one on which even the National Council of Judges did not issue a special position after discussion.

Kwon, the former Supreme Court Justice who belonged to the Supreme Court, the highest judicial institution and the last bastion for the realization of justice, received large advisory fees and salaries from Hwacheon Daeyu immediately after retirement, despite having acquitted Governor Lee, who is suspected of granting favors in the Daejang-dong case. It was also revealed that the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu met several times with Kwon around the time of the ruling. More puzzling is that Kwon made a completely different judgment (a guilty verdict for false statements during a TV debate) on a similar matter just a few years ago.

We sincerely hope this is not true, but if, as the opposition claims, former Justice Kwon, who led the acquittal of Governor Lee, received economic benefits from Hwacheon Daeyu after retirement, and Hwacheon Daeyu was selected as the developer and earned huge profits by receiving various favors from Yoo Dong-gyu, former acting president of Seongnam Urban Development Corporation and known as a close aide to Governor Lee, this would be a tremendous scandal that could destroy public trust in the judiciary.

No matter how much Governor Lee, a leading ruling party presidential candidate, is involved in the 'Daejang-dong' allegations, as a member of the National Assembly elected by the people, lawmakers should show some effort to uncover the truth of these allegations that everyone is curious about. Wasting precious questioning opportunities in this way and hastily diverting focus elsewhere is dereliction of duty.

Furthermore, on the same day, ruling party lawmaker Park Seong-jun criticized the controversy over Governor Lee’s Supreme Court ruling, pointing to the 'politicization of the judiciary.' He argued that in TV debates before elections, where political battles between candidates occur, even if false statements arise while answering aggressive questions from opponents, it should remain in the political realm. If such matters are legally challenged, it would lead to 'judicialization of politics.' He absurdly claimed that the prosecution’s indictment and trial over Governor Lee’s false statements were problematic.

If a public consensus forms that punishing false statements made during TV debates is inappropriate, the law should be amended to remove the punishment provisions. However, making claims that prosecuting and trying cases that meet the elements of a crime under existing laws is problematic is not something lawmakers, who make laws, should say.

Moreover, Park emphasized that the recent controversy over Governor Lee’s Supreme Court acquittal is problematic. He pointed out that rulings should be respected as they are, and dragging them into the political arena to discuss their appropriateness causes 'politicization of the judiciary.' This is absolutely correct. However, it is not for the ruling party, which openly criticized the judiciary and the trial panels when guilty verdicts were issued against former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk’s family or former Gyeongnam Governor Kim Kyung-soo, to make such remarks. Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye conducted a large-scale joint inspection by reopening the case of former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook, who was convicted by the Supreme Court years ago.

Does this mean that favorable rulings for our side are 'politicization of the judiciary,' but unfavorable rulings can be criticized freely?

The only ruling party lawmaker who criticized Deputy Chief Kim during the 'Daejang-dong' allegations, asking "How can the public trust the courts?" and proposed measures to restrict the work that retired Supreme Court justices can handle and to establish a Judicial Ethics Review Committee was lawmaker So Byung-chul.

What is worrisome is that the same scenes are likely to be repeated in the remaining inspections of the prosecution, Ministry of Justice, and Gongu-cheo.

Above all, both ruling and opposition parties bear great responsibility for failing to summon a single witness to the inspections, which should clarify public doubts.

It is expected that during the Ministry of Justice, prosecution, and Gongu-cheo inspections, ruling party lawmakers will spend considerable time listing facts related to the 'Report-for-Prosecution' allegations, while opposition lawmakers will do the same for the 'Tip-for-Prosecution' allegations.

It is hoped that the next inspections will not repeat the question-and-answer sessions where lawmakers only express their own opinions under the guise of questioning, rather than asking questions to receive answers. Repeating questions that obviously will be answered with 'I cannot answer' and focusing only on imprinting unfavorable issues about the opposing party on the public must also disappear.

I recall watching live on TV the '5th Republic Corruption Hearing' held just months after former President Chun Doo-hwan’s retirement in 1988, where then-opposition lawmaker and later President Roh Moo-hyun threw a nameplate at Chun, who was exercising his right to remain silent. At that time, Roh calmly asked sharp questions and quickly became a 'hearing star.'

I look forward to the emergence of a 'National Assembly Inspection Star' who will move the public.