"Questions on the Legitimacy of the Hearing Procedures... Deliberating Attendance"
The legal team of former Minister of National Defense Lee Jong-seop, who was selected as a witness for the hearing on the petition requesting the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, stated, "The interests of the defendant, Colonel Park Jeong-hoon, and the accuser, the Democratic Party, coincide," and urged, "Please ensure that the hearing does not influence the ongoing investigation or trial."
Additionally, Lee's legal team pointed out incidents that occurred during the previously held 'Sergeant Chae Special Prosecutor Act Legislative Hearing,' appealing, "Regardless of whether former Minister Lee appears as a witness, please refrain from shouting at witnesses or making personally insulting remarks."
Kim Jae-hoon, attorney for former Minister Lee, said in a statement released to the media on the 17th, "Former Minister Lee Jong-seop, who was selected as a witness for the National Assembly Judiciary Committee's hearing on the presidential impeachment petition scheduled for the 19th, is currently deliberating whether to attend due to doubts about the legality of the hearing procedure itself."
He added, "When former Minister Lee, who was previously selected as a witness for the legislative hearing, refused to take the oath in accordance with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws, he was not even given a proper opportunity to respond. He was forced to leave for 10 minutes for speaking without permission, and I even came across media reports that he was accused by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeong Cheong-rae of contempt of the National Assembly for refusing the oath."
Attorney Kim stated, "However, there are many doubts about whether the procedure of this impeachment hearing is lawful. The petition content appears to fall under exceptions for acceptance and processing, as it either insults a state institution, the president, concerns matters under investigation or trial, or is merely policy criticism with unclear content. There is no legal basis for holding a hearing on the petition, and it is difficult to regard a one-page petition containing only such content as an 'important agenda' under Article 65 of the National Assembly Act (provisions on hearings)."
Kim appealed, "Regardless of former Minister Lee's attendance as a witness, I have a request to the National Assembly Judiciary Committee: Please comply with the National Assembly Act and other laws during the hearing process."
He urged, "Please observe Article 146 of the National Assembly Act. Do not shout at witnesses or make personally insulting remarks. Also, respect the purpose of Article 8 of the Act on Inspection and Investigation of State Affairs."
Attorney Kim explained, "Due to the Democratic Party's accusation of former Minister Lee to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) on the grounds that 'the minister's instruction to withhold referral was illegal,' former Minister Lee has become an accused. Colonel Park Jeong-hoon is a defendant currently on trial for insubordination charges for not following former Minister Lee's orders. We hope the hearing will not influence the ongoing investigation or trial."
Kim noted that since the interests of Colonel Park, who must be acquitted in the insubordination trial, and the Democratic Party, which accused former Minister Lee, coincide, there is a risk that former Minister Lee will be unilaterally treated as a criminal while Colonel Park is treated as innocent, which itself constitutes interference in the investigation or trial.
He said, "The defendant Colonel Park Jeong-hoon and the accuser Democratic Party (the majority of the hearing committee) share the same interests. In other words, Colonel Park can only be acquitted of insubordination if former Minister Lee's instruction to withhold referral is deemed illegal."
He continued, "If former Minister Lee, who is an accused in the ongoing investigation or trial, is treated as a criminal, while Colonel Park, who is on trial for insubordination charges, is treated as innocent, wouldn't that itself be interference in the investigation or trial? We hope such a situation does not recur."
Attorney Kim argued that considering this situation, Colonel Park's lawyer should appear as a witness, not just a reference, at the hearing.
He said, "From this perspective, it is difficult to regard Colonel Park Jeong-hoon's lawyer as a reference who can present objective opinions at the hearing. Furthermore, if that lawyer is one party to the so-called 'rescue lobbying' recorded conversations recently appearing in the media, it would be even harder to recognize their impartiality. If there is a need to clarify such suspicions at the hearing, the lawyer should appear as a 'witness' who reveals facts, not as a 'reference' who offers opinions."
At the end of the statement, Attorney Kim expressed dissatisfaction toward the Democratic Party, asking, "Who were the ones that amended the Military Court Act to strip the military of investigative authority in cases of soldier deaths? Nevertheless, can the initial investigation actions of the Marine Corps Investigation Unit regarding the Marine casualty case be considered an investigation? Is it truly an external pressure on the investigation?"
He continued, "Is the Marine Corps Investigation Unit an independent organization that does not receive command or supervision from anyone, including the Minister of National Defense? Is it appropriate to raise issues about decision-making or communication processes within the executive branch, especially the military? According to the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency's investigation results, which is more legally valid?the Marine Corps Investigation Unit's action opinion or the Ministry of National Defense's review opinion? Wasn't the minister's instruction to withhold referral a lawful and just act that corrected the Marine Corps Investigation Unit's action opinion?"
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
