Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-young, who indicted four lawmakers from the People Power Party for allegedly obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, has been accused of distorting the law. This follows a previous investigation by the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team, led by Jo Eun-seok, which dismissed the allegations. The differing conclusions have sparked ongoing controversy regarding the appropriateness of the indictments.
According to legal sources on August 18, former Seoul City Councilor Lee Jong-bae filed a complaint against Special Prosecutor Kwon with the Supreme Prosecutors' Office through the National Petition Center.
On August 14, the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's Office indicted lawmakers Na Kyung-won, Kim Gi-hyeon, Yoon Sang-hyun, and Kwon Young-jin without detention on charges of obstructing the execution of special public duties. They are accused of hindering the execution of an arrest warrant in front of the presidential residence in Yongsan, Seoul, on January 15 of last year, alongside supporters of former President Yoon.
The Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's Office determined that the lawmakers did not merely express opposition to the arrest but formed a human wall with numerous individuals present, effectively obstructing the execution of the warrant.
The decision to indict was based on testimonies from officials involved in the execution of the warrant, approximately 94GB of recorded evidence, transcripts of verbal abuse captured in the footage, and legal precedents related to similar cases.
In contrast, the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team, which previously investigated the case, reached a different conclusion. After analyzing the evidence, they found no proof that the lawmakers directly assaulted or verbally abused investigators, leading them to dismiss the case.
Former Councilor Lee argued that the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's Office improperly indicted the lawmakers despite failing to meet the criteria for the charge of obstructing special public duties. He stated, "According to legal precedents, intimidation in the context of obstructing public duties refers to actions intended to instill fear in the other party by threatening harm. The mere existence of 'verbal abuse' as claimed by the Special Prosecutor's team does not constitute intimidation that would instill fear to the extent required by law."
Lee further contended that the Special Prosecutor's reliance on mere verbal abuse to apply the charge of obstruction was a deliberate attempt to influence the investigation results, constituting a violation of Article 123-2 of the Criminal Code regarding law distortion.
He also asserted that the lawmakers' actions fell under the justifiable acts defined in Article 20 of the Criminal Code, arguing that given the controversy surrounding the legality of the arrest warrant for a president from the same party, their protests were legitimate and not unlawful.
Lee emphasized, "It is common for lawmakers to collectively express messages to the public. There were concerns from academia and experts regarding the legality of the warrant, and the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team found no evidence of violence or verbal abuse against investigators, leading to their dismissal of the case."
He concluded that the indictment of the four lawmakers, who are constitutional officials, despite the lack of established charges, represents a clear illegal indictment and an act of oppression against the opposition, calling for an investigation into Special Prosecutor Kwon, who bears ultimate responsibility for the investigation.
The People Power Party also strongly opposed the indictments immediately after they were announced. Lawmaker Na stated, "This is political oppression aimed at dragging even one more opposition lawmaker into court and silencing dissent. The political special prosecutor, who has abused judicial power and manipulated legal principles to silence opposition lawmakers, will face charges of law distortion."
Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sik criticized the indictment, stating, "This is a showy indictment aimed at appeasing the government and ruling party, which extended the investigation period by 90 days. Fearing the criticism of being a 'toothless special prosecutor' after 180 days of investigation, they proceeded with the indictment irresponsibly, thinking, 'Let's just indict and see.'"
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.