[Law & Story] Investigation of Mrs. Kim Requires President Yoon's Decision

Positions on Luxury Bag Scandal Keep Changing
A Political Controversy Drawing Public Attention
The Principle of "Investigation Without Sanctuary" Must Have No Exceptions

Seokjin Choi, Legal Affairs Specialist Reporter

The positions of the Presidential Office and Mrs. Kim Geon-hee regarding the receipt of luxury bags have been continuously changing. Initially, they explained that the bags could not be returned due to the Presidential Records Act, but recently, there have been claims that "Mrs. Kim instructed to return them, but the administrative officer who received the order forgot." The statement that the bags were "stored in a warehouse while still wrapped" has changed to "the administrative officer unwrapped and then rewrapped the bags for storage."

The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act does not have provisions to punish the spouse of a public official for receiving prohibited gifts. It only prohibits the spouse from receiving gifts related to the public official's duties. Although there is a clear gap in punishment, it is impossible to indict Mrs. Kim solely for receiving luxury bags.

Although the accuser also filed charges for bribery, based on the facts revealed so far, it is difficult to prove the necessary elements such as conspiracy with President Yoon Seok-yeol, connection to official duties, and quid pro quo to apply bribery charges to Mrs. Kim, who is not a public official.

On the other hand, the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act includes a provision to punish public officials who, knowing that their spouse received prohibited gifts, fail to report it in writing without delay. However, since the reporting target is defined as the "head of the affiliated institution," there is room for interpretation as to whether President Yoon should have reported it to himself.

In conclusion, there is no punishment clause for Mrs. Kim, and even if President Yoon violated the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, he cannot be indicted during his term. This is because the president has immunity from prosecution under the Constitution.

Since indictment is impossible anyway, some argue why the prosecution, which is conducting the investigation on the premise of indictment, should bother summoning Mrs. Kim for questioning. However, this case has become not just a simple criminal case but a political issue attracting the attention of the entire nation.

It is necessary to verify why Mrs. Kim did not express refusal in advance to Pastor Choi Jae-young, who was bringing the luxury bag as a gift, why she did not reject the bag on the spot when Pastor Choi actually brought it, and why she did not return the bag to Pastor Choi when he was leaving. Regardless of whether indictment is legally possible, the public is puzzled about whether it is acceptable for the First Lady to receive expensive gifts without any issues.

If the investigation is conducted through a visit or at a third-party location citing security concerns, it may not appear to be a proper investigation. At this opportunity, the allegations of stock manipulation involving Deutsch Motors should also be investigated to reach a conclusion, whether indictment or non-indictment.

From Mrs. Kim's perspective, she may feel wronged, but this outcome originated from not refusing the expensive gift in the first place. There is video footage of Mrs. Kim. From the standpoint of President Yoon or the ruling party, it seems they are concerned that her appearance could provide the opposition party with an opportunity to attack regarding the attendance issue.

However, Mrs. Kim's appearance before the prosecution has now become unavoidable. There is no other solution. The public is watching whether President Yoon will apply the principle of "investigation without sanctuary," which made Prosecutor Yoon Seok-yeol into President Yoon Seok-yeol, equally to himself and Mrs. Kim.