Kim Man-bae and Nam Wook's Imminent Warrant Showdown... Prosecution Struggles to Find a Breakthrough

Refiled After 11 Days Since Kim Gi-gak
Prosecution Faces Deadlock If Detention Fails
Criticism Over Indictment Excluding Yudonggyu's 'Breach of Trust'
Many Loopholes Relying Only on Recordings
Conflicting Testimonies of Daejangdong Four Lead to Confusion and Lack of Direction

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The prosecution will soon request arrest warrants for Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management (Hwacheon Daeyu), and lawyer Nam Wook, who are central figures in the ‘Daejang-dong development preferential treatment and lobbying’ allegations.

This is a reapplication for Kim, about 11 days after his arrest was denied on the 14th. It is the first attempt to obtain an arrest warrant for lawyer Nam. The arrest warrants for the two represent a decisive move by the prosecution, which is approaching one month since the investigation into the allegations began. External views on the prosecution’s investigation remain unfavorable. If the two are arrested, it could be a breakthrough to shift the flow of the prosecution’s investigation. However, if not, the prosecution will be pushed into a more difficult position.

◆ "The card of separating Yoo Dong-gyu’s embezzlement charge is absent"

There is still strong criticism within the legal community regarding the prosecution team’s indictment of former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation Planning Director Yoo Dong-gyu on the 21st.

A lawyer, A, who is a former prosecution official, analyzed that the prosecution team’s omission of Yoo’s embezzlement charge from the indictment means "the investigation team lacks sufficient cards." The prosecution team did not apply the embezzlement charge when indicting Yoo, citing insufficient investigation into the embezzlement allegations and ongoing investigations of accomplices. A prosecution official called this a "separation decision." A separation decision is an internal procedural rule where prosecutors temporarily postpone applying some charges when indicting a suspect.

After the prosecution team’s indictment, Yoo’s side will be able to review and copy materials. The prosecution’s known facts of the case will also be leaked to accomplices. Lawyer A said, "This is a timid decision because it shows all the cards the prosecution holds to the suspects, but it is a narrow response," adding, "In special investigations, the prosecution also needs a bold attitude to show all cards. The Daejang-dong investigation team seems to be lacking something. If they had many cards, they would have confidently specified the embezzlement charge."

◆ The 8-page indictment against Yoo Dong-gyu is also deficient

The indictment written by the investigation team against former director Yoo also has many flaws. It mainly relies on the recordings of accountant Jung Young-hak, audio files of lawyer Nam, and statements from the parties involved. The facts of the case do not go beyond what has been reported in the media.

Regarding the bribery charge that Yoo received 352 million KRW from lawyer Nam and accountant Jung for the Daejang-dong project, the indictment specifies the circumstances that led Yoo to request the money and the method of receipt, but it does not include details on how lawyer Nam actually helped the corporation. There is a person who received bribes, but the charge against the person who gave the bribes is not specified.

However, the indictment leaves room for embezzlement by including points such as the biased progress of work favoring Hwacheon Daeyu during the project operator selection process after the corporation’s establishment. Along with criticism that the indictment is deficient, the legal community also predicts that the prosecution will face difficulties proving the charges not only during the investigation but also in court.

◆ The core four manipulate the prosecution with contradictory statements

One reason the prosecution has failed to set a clear direction is the conflicting testimonies of the core four. There are even sarcastic remarks that "the lawyers helping the four are so skilled that the prosecution is at a loss."

From the early stages of the investigation, the prosecution has identified Kim Man-bae, Yoo Dong-gyu, Nam Wook, and Jung Young-hak as the ‘Daejang-dong core four’ and is investigating them as key figures. They coordinate the timing of their interrogations to suit their preferred narrative, devise rebuttal strategies based on the statements of other related parties who were questioned earlier, and then face the prosecution’s questioning. It is known that during the prosecution’s investigations, they have given contradictory statements and reversed their claims.

There are also differing accounts regarding ‘that person’ mentioned in the recordings. According to accountant Jung’s recordings, Kim Man-bae said, "Everyone knows that Cheonhwa-dongin No. 1 is not mine. Half of it belongs to ‘that person’." Lawyer Nam reportedly testified that ‘that person’ is former director Yoo. However, before returning to Korea, lawyer Nam said in a media interview, "‘That person’ is not former director Yoo," but later reversed this in the prosecution’s investigation. Meanwhile, Kim Man-bae still denies the ‘that person’ remark and claims that the recordings submitted by accountant Jung are edited and denies their evidentiary value altogether.