'False Party Change' Lawmaker Min Hyung-bae Reported to Prosecutors for Obstruction of Business Charges

Independent lawmaker Min Hyung-bae.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Min Hyung-bae, an independent lawmaker from Gwangju Gwangsan-gu Eul who disguised himself as having left the Democratic Party to forcibly pass the amended Criminal Procedure Act and Prosecutors' Office Act containing the so-called 'Geomsu Wanbak (complete removal of prosecutorial investigative authority),' has been reported to the prosecution on charges of obstruction of business.

On the 22nd, the civic group Action Alliance for Restoring the Rule of Law (Beopse-ryeon) filed a complaint against Min with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office on charges of obstruction of business by deception and intimidation.

Lee Jong-bae, representative of Beopse-ryeon, held a press conference in front of the entrance of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-dong, Seoul, before submitting the complaint, stating, "Min, a member of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, disguised himself as having left the Democratic Party to cunningly push through the so-called 'Geomsu Wanbak' bill that completely removes the prosecution's investigative authority. The Democratic Party immediately assigned Min, who became an independent, to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and applied for the formation of a bill adjustment committee. The bill adjustment committee is composed of three members each from the ruling and opposition parties, but since Min became an independent and participates as part of the opposition, the committee effectively becomes 4 to 2, allowing the bill to bypass subcommittee review and be submitted directly to the full committee meeting, enabling the Democratic Party to unilaterally pass the bill," he explained.

He continued, "The purpose of including minor parties in the opposition quota of the bill adjustment committee is to listen to and reflect minority voices. However, if Min, an independent who is effectively a Democratic Party member, participates as part of the opposition quota, minor parties will be unable to participate in the committee. This constitutes obstruction of the minor parties' work by intimidation, and by disguising himself as an independent to confuse the bill adjustment committee and obstruct its members' work, Min is criminally liable for obstruction of business by deception and intimidation," he stated as the reason for the complaint.

Lee emphasized, "Since the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act and Prosecutors' Office Act are directly related to people's livelihoods, even if it is a difficult and challenging path, the ruling and opposition parties should come together, communicate with the public, and resolve the issue through social consensus. Using the majority number to enforce objectives is a method often used by dictators," he criticized.

Finally, Lee appealed, "Disguising oneself as having left the party to obstruct the work of the bill adjustment committee for the passage of a specific bill is a very serious anti-democratic and anti-constitutional crime. I urge a thorough investigation and severe punishment of the accused."

Initially, the Democratic Party attempted to neutralize the bill adjustment committee through Yang Hyang-ja, an independent lawmaker formerly of the Democratic Party who was assigned to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. However, when Yang opposed the forcible passage of the 'Geomsu Wanbak' law, Min was made to leave the party and assigned to the bill adjustment committee of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. If the bill passes the bill adjustment committee, it is considered to have passed subcommittee review and can be immediately submitted to the full committee meeting.

Regarding this action by the Democratic Party, Gong Bong-suk, head of the Women and Children Crime Investigation Division at the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office, posted an article titled "Effect of Disguised Party Resignation?" on the prosecution's internal network on the 20th, arguing, "It corresponds to 'fraudulent indication by agreement' under Article 108 of the Civil Act and also to 'acts against public order' under Article 103 of the same law, thus it is invalid."