"Lee Jae-myung, Concerns Over Retaliation and Harm by Related Parties" ... Reasons for Detention Mentioned in Prosecutors' Warrant

The prosecution has emphasized the reason why Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who is implicated in the 'Baekhyeon-dong development special favor' and 'Ssangbangwool Group's North Korea remittance' allegations, must be detained, citing "concerns that important witnesses may be harmed."

According to the arrest warrant request for Lee obtained by Asia Economy on the 20th, the Anti-Corruption Investigation Division 1 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (Chief Prosecutor Eom Hee-jun) devoted 50 pages?just over one-third of the total 142 pages?to explaining the reasons why Lee's detention is necessary.

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who is on the 16th day of his hunger strike, is passing by Democratic Party lawmakers who are supporting the protest in the National Assembly hallway on the 15th. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

The prosecution stated, "The reason we were able to establish sufficient grounds for requesting an arrest warrant against the suspect (Lee Jae-myung) was that lower-ranking officials and other accomplices courageously cooperated with the investigation to uncover the truth during the prosecution's inquiry," adding, "Many subordinate public officials who cooperated with the truth are currently fearful of suffering various disadvantages or retaliations in personnel matters, economic aspects, or daily life."

As evidence, they cited the deaths of Seongnam city officials that occurred consecutively during the prosecution's investigation into the Daejang-dong urban development corruption and Seongnam FC illegal sponsorship cases, as well as Lee's denial of any connection with these incidents. In particular, they pointed to former Gyeonggi Province Peace Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young, who reversed her testimony during prosecution investigations and trials related to the North Korea remittance case. Around June, Lee Hwa-young partially reversed her previous stance of outright denying any ties with the Ssangbangwool Group during the prosecution's investigation, stating that she had requested the Gyeonggi Province governor's visit to North Korea on behalf of Ssangbangwool. She also testified that she reported to Lee Jae-myung that "Ssangbangwool spent money in North Korea while conducting business, so we (the governor's office) likely paid attention to it." However, on the 7th, she submitted a handwritten statement to the court claiming that "some false statements were made under pressure from the prosecution." The prosecution believes that coercion and inducement by Lee and the Democratic Party of Korea were behind Lee Hwa-young's reversal of testimony.

The prosecution argued, "Considering that Lee Hwa-young's spouse, who was persuaded by a close aide of the suspect, treated her husband as a traitor and was thoroughly isolated to the extent that he was denied even the basic right to legal counsel, and that despite being the ultimate decision-maker responsible for Gyeonggi Province's administration, the suspect shifted responsibility onto Lee Hwa-young and other officials, it is inevitable that key related parties, including Lee Hwa-young, fear various disadvantages or retaliations due to the suspect's political and social influence and actual attempts to destroy evidence."

The prosecution also noted that Lee did not sign the interrogation record from the first investigation he received at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on the 9th in relation to the North Korea remittance case, and mentioned his previous criminal record. The prosecution wrote, "As a legal professional, the suspect is believed to have evaded Article 244, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulates that if there is a disagreement with the prosecutor's record, the suspect should directly state the disagreement, and refused to sign the record as a political attack against the prosecution's investigation." They then listed Lee's prior fines for offenses such as drunk driving, emphasizing, "It is questionable whether the suspect has any intention to respect the judicial order, and such points must be taken into account when determining the necessity of the suspect's detention."