The prosecution expressed that it is "difficult to accept and very regrettable" that the court dismissed the arrest warrant requested by the prosecution against Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, on the 27th in relation to the Baekhyeon-dong development project and allegations of illegal remittances to North Korea.
In particular, the prosecution strongly opposed the court's judgment, calling it "contradictory," as the court recognized that the charge of witness tampering against Lee was substantiated but judged that there was no concern of evidence destruction.
Immediately after the warrant against Lee was dismissed that day, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office stated, "It is difficult to accept the judgment that, while acknowledging that the charge of witness tampering was substantiated and there is considerable suspicion that the suspect was involved in the Baekhyeon-dong development corruption, and also recognizing the testimony of Lee Hwa-young admitting the suspect's involvement in the North Korean remittance case, there is room for dispute based on that testimony.
Additionally, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office said, "Recognizing that the charge of witness tampering was substantiated means that evidence destruction was realistically carried out, yet the court judged that there is 'no concern of evidence destruction.' While acknowledging circumstances that raise suspicion of improper involvement by surrounding figures, the court still judged that there is 'no concern of evidence destruction,' which is contradictory." The prosecution added, "We will continue to conduct supplementary investigations and firmly uncover the substantive truth according to law and principles without wavering."
On the 27th, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the arrest warrant requested by the prosecution following the pre-arrest detention hearing for Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea. Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is heading to a vehicle after finishing his remarks in front of the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province on the 27th. [Joint Coverage] [Image Source=Yonhap News]
The day before, Yoo Chang-hoon, the chief judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, who conducted the pre-arrest interrogation of Lee, dismissed the arrest warrant in the early morning, stating, "Considering the necessity of guaranteeing the suspect's right to defense and the degree of concern for evidence destruction, it is difficult to see grounds and necessity for detention to the extent that the principle of non-detention should be excluded."
Judge Yoo pointed out that although there is suspicion that Lee was involved in the breach of trust under the Specific Economic Crimes Act for excluding Seongnam Urban Development Corporation from participating in the project, causing the corporation a loss of at least 20 billion KRW, "direct evidence itself is insufficient." Regarding the charges of bribery under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act related to illegal remittances to North Korea, he stated, "There appears to be room for dispute regarding the suspect's awareness, conspiracy, and degree of involvement." However, he judged that the charge of witness tampering against Lee seems substantiated.
Regarding concerns about evidence destruction, Judge Yoo judged that in the case of Lee's witness tampering charge and Baekhyeon-dong related charges, considering the already secured human and material evidence, there is no concern of evidence destruction. Concerning the North Korean remittance case, although there are circumstances that raise suspicion of improper involvement by Lee's close associates based on the testimony of former Gyeonggi Province Peace Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Lee directly intervened. Considering that Lee is the current party leader and subject to public scrutiny and criticism, it is difficult to definitively conclude that there is a concern of evidence destruction.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
