[Q&A] Lee Hwa-young's Alleged 'Coercion to Falsify Testimony at Drinking Party' Dispute

A fierce battle over the truth continues between former Gyeonggi Province Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young’s side and the prosecution regarding the allegations of ‘coercion to fabricate testimony over a drinking party’ raised by Lee.

Whenever Lee’s defense attorney Kim Kwang-min raises suspicions, the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office refutes them, and when Kim rebuts again, the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office counters once more. This back-and-forth has been repeating for several days.

Former Gyeonggi Province Deputy Governor for Peace, Lee Hwa-young.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

In the early stages of the dispute, the prosecution seemed somewhat on the back foot. The revelation that a detained defendant drank alcohol inside the prosecution office was so shocking, and since the CCTV footage from a year ago had long been deleted due to retention period expiration, it seemed unclear how the prosecution could rebut the claim. Even within the prosecution, there were complaints like, "How can you prove non-existence?" It is generally easier to prove that ‘something happened’ than to prove that ‘something did not happen.’

However, the situation changed as the prosecution actively countered Lee’s side’s claims using objective evidence such as attendance records, full surveys of the defendant, defense attorneys, and correctional officers. During the exchanges, Lee’s side repeatedly changed the date and location of the alleged drinking party, and recently even reversed Lee’s courtroom testimony that he personally drank until his face turned red, changing their stance on whether drinking occurred at all. Currently, Lee’s side faces the challenge of presenting objective evidence to prove that a drinking party occurred on dates other than those confirmed by the prosecution’s attendance records as impossible.

Meanwhile, the opposition party has been increasing pressure on the prosecution, demanding a thorough inspection by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and threatening to form a fact-finding team and file complaints against related prosecutors. In contrast, the ruling party counters by calling the allegations "absurd lies" and accuses the Democratic Party’s behavior of undermining national order.

The following summarizes the progress and key issues related to the allegations in a Q&A format.

Q. What are the allegations of ‘drinking party coercion’ or ‘coercion to fabricate testimony over a drinking party’?

A. Lee, who is on trial for charges related to Ssangbangwool’s illegal remittance to North Korea, allegedly had a drinking party at the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office between late June and early July last year with former Ssangbangwool Chairman Kim Sung-tae, former Vice Chairman Bang Yong-chul, and other Ssangbangwool affiliates. During this party, Lee was allegedly coerced by Kim Sung-tae to give testimony related to Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, including statements like "If Lee Jae-myung is not indicted for third-party bribery, you’re in big trouble."

Q. When and how did these allegations surface?

A. On the last defense hearing day of Lee’s criminal trial on the 4th, before the general election, Lee made related remarks in the Suwon District Court courtroom. Subsequently, during the prosecutor’s questioning of the defendant, more specific answers emerged.

Q. Were these allegations raised for the first time now?

A. No. Kim Kwang-min, who currently represents Lee, appeared on a YouTube broadcast on December 26 last year and raised suspicions about drinking parties inside the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, saying, "In a room labeled ‘warehouse’ opposite the prosecutor’s office, Ssangbangwool affiliates were always gathered, and alcohol was provided. They drank at the prosecution office. A correctional officer even protested to the prosecutor because it was intolerable." However, at that time, it did not attract much attention.

Q. Why have the allegations spread widely this time?

A. On the evening of the 4th, the day Lee made the courtroom revelation, OhmyNews published a report titled , covering the trial scene. Since the timing was close to the general election and could potentially violate the Public Official Election Act, the Democratic Party had restrained attacks on the prosecution. After their sweeping victory, they formed a fact-finding team and threatened to file complaints with the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials against the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office and its investigation leadership. They also made protest visits to Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, Suwon Detention Center, and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, strongly pressuring the prosecution. The Democratic Party’s escalation was partly influenced by leader Lee Jae-myung’s statement that "Based on the prosecution’s attitude, Lee Hwa-young’s testimony appears 100% true."

Q. What is the prosecution’s stance?

A. The Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, which investigated and indicted Lee, states that the allegations are "completely false." They argue that it is impossible for defendants to drink alcohol inside the prosecution office without correctional officers noticing, and that they never coerced Lee to give false testimony.

Q. On what grounds does the prosecution claim all of Lee’s side’s allegations are false?

A. The Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office says that after investigating all Ssangbangwool affiliates who allegedly drank with Lee, including former Chairman Kim Sung-tae and former Vice Chairman Bang Yong-chul, as well as all defense attorneys present during Lee’s interrogation and 38 correctional officers, they confirmed Lee’s claims were false. They also checked food orders and attendance records for the alleged drinking dates, finding that Lee either ate in the detention area of a separate building, returned to the detention center before dinner, or that no alcohol was brought into the prosecution office on those dates.

Q. The prosecution said the drinking times claimed by Lee’s side don’t add up. Why?

A. Lee’s side’s claim of ‘coercion to fabricate testimony’ relates to statements about Lee Jae-myung. However, Lee had already finished defendant testimony by June 30 last year, so the prosecution argues there was no need to arrange a drinking party in early July to coerce or pressure him. In response, attorney Kim Kwang-min argued that testimony does not end with the interrogation, and since the Criminal Procedure Act was amended so that interrogation records cannot be used as evidence without the defendant’s consent in court, the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office needed to coerce Lee to maintain the testimony afterward.

Attorney Kim Kwang-min, the lawyer of former Gyeonggi Province Deputy Governor for Peace Lee Hwa-young, who is engaged in a battle of truth with the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office over allegations of "coercion to manipulate testimony at drinking gatherings." Photo by Yonhap News TV screen capture

Q. Lee’s side keeps changing the date and location of the drinking party. What’s the explanation?

A. Regarding the drinking date, Lee’s side first said ‘late June to early July last year,’ then ‘right after the last defendant interrogation record on June 30,’ and later changed it to June 28, July 3, or July 5, with July 3 being the most likely. For the location, attorney Kim and Lee initially claimed it was the office opposite the prosecutor’s office labeled ‘warehouse’ (Room 1315), then changed it to the ‘video recording room inside prosecutor’s office’ (Room 1313).

Q. What reason does Lee’s side give for these changing statements?

A. Kim Kwang-min cites lack of information. While the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office has all attendance records and other materials and selectively uses them to refute Lee’s claims, he says he applied through the court for data from Suwon Detention Center but was not cooperated with, making it difficult to specify exact dates. Recently, Kim stated he would not make specific rebuttals, especially regarding the ‘salmon drinking’ dates, until attendance records and other information are secured.

Q. What about the recent allegation of ‘coercion by a former high-ranking prosecutor turned lawyer’?

A. It was claimed that Prosecutor Park from Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office introduced a former high-ranking prosecutor turned lawyer to Lee, who then met with Lee and allegedly coerced him to confess regarding Lee Jae-myung. On the 22nd, attorney Kim released a written statement by Lee dated the 21st, claiming that the lawyer said, "If you admit Kim Sung-tae’s testimony and say the remittance to North Korea was for Lee Jae-myung, the prosecution promised to make the ongoing case favorable to me and stop surrounding investigations."

Q. What is Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office’s response?

A. They confirmed that the lawyer had no involvement arranged by the prosecution, had a longstanding personal friendship with Lee, and met Lee and his family at their request, and that coercion of Lee was completely unfounded. The lawyer, a former high-ranking prosecutor, is reportedly the same age as Lee and they were like friends.

Q. What about the hidden CCTV allegation?

A. Attorney Kim claimed he received a tip that there are two CCTVs in Room 1313, the testimony recording room at Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, and that one hidden behind a mirror in the inner right corner is always recording. Kim called this a ‘hidden CCTV’ and requested the prosecution to clarify the purpose of installing a CCTV that the interviewee cannot recognize and to check if forensic restoration of the footage is possible, expecting that the ‘salmon drinking’ situation would be recorded.

Q. Was the hidden CCTV claim true?

A. No. The Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office explained that each interrogation room has two video recording devices: one positioned behind a mirror to capture the upper body of the interviewee, and another on the ceiling to capture the entire room. These devices only operate when the interviewee consents to video recording during the actual interrogation and are not continuously recording CCTVs.

Q. How do insiders view Lee’s side’s claims?

A. Inside the prosecution, the prevailing reaction is that such events are ‘impossible.’ Investigation practices have changed completely over the past decade; meals are prepared by correctional officers in the detention area, and it is practically impossible for prosecutors to exclude correctional officers and gather defendants with conflicting interests to eat together. Correctional officers face immediate disciplinary action or dismissal if they overlook detainees drinking alcohol, so even if prosecutors ask for understanding, they cannot ignore it. Prosecutors themselves find it hard to believe anyone would have the nerve to coerce Lee, who is under close scrutiny due to his connection with Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, by making him drink. However, some outside the prosecution who are less familiar with internal affairs think such incidents might have happened in the past and consider it plausible.

Former Ssangbangwool Chairman Kim Sung-tae. [Image source=Yonhap News]

Q. Why is it so controversial whether Lee was coerced by former Chairman Kim Sung-tae or prosecutors regarding testimony?

A. The prosecution believes the Ssangbangwool remittance to North Korea was payment for Lee Jae-myung’s visit to North Korea during his tenure as Gyeonggi Province Governor. Whether Lee reported this to Lee Jae-myung beforehand could decisively affect the leader’s criminal liability. Lee initially testified last June that he did report to Lee Jae-myung but later retracted this. The Democratic Party emphasizes that the retraction was due to coercion by prosecutors and Kim Sung-tae to avoid indictment or gain favorable circumstances in trial, thus escalating the allegations and pressuring the prosecution at the party level.

Q. If a prosecutor said, ‘Please testify truthfully and you will receive leniency,’ is that coercion?

A. Since it means asking the defendant to tell the truth rather than lie, it is something prosecutors can reasonably say and is hard to classify as coercion. However, if in this case the prosecutor said this to Lee, it could be interpreted as urging him to admit Lee Jae-myung’s involvement or knowledge, which Lee might perceive as coercion.

Q. What is the outlook?

A. The truth battle between Lee’s side and the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office is expected to continue for some time. However, Lee’s side has not clearly rebutted the prosecution’s objective evidence disproving the alleged drinking dates and locations, and recently Lee even retracted his courtroom testimony about personally drinking, casting doubt on the credibility of his statements. Therefore, the Democratic Party’s ‘Special Countermeasures Team for Political Prosecution Case Fabrication’ may find it somewhat burdensome to aggressively push for a national audit or complaints to the Corruption Investigation Office.

Q. When will the verdict in Lee’s trial be announced?

A. Lee was sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined 1 billion won at the closing arguments on the 8th, with the verdict scheduled for June 7. On the previous day, Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok stated, "Lee Hwa-young is on trial for serious corruption crimes, including receiving illegal bribes exceeding 250 million won, illegal political funds exceeding 330 million won, and illegally remitting 80 million USD (about 10 billion won) to North Korea, as well as instructing evidence destruction during the investigation." He added, "The court has issued three arrest warrants, and these serious corruption crimes carry sentences ranging from life imprisonment to a minimum of 10 years in prison." As the prosecutor general indicated, a heavy sentence is expected. Attention will focus on how the court judges Lee’s charges related to the North Korea remittance, especially regarding the reversed testimony about reporting to Lee Jae-myung.