A peculiar scene unfolded as Kim Ji-yong, the inaugural chief of the Major Crimes Investigation Agency, attended a Cabinet meeting at the Blue House on October 20, even before his official inauguration. President Lee Jae-myung instructed Kim to "mobilize all investigative resources without bias to crack down on major crimes." In response, Kim pledged to successfully establish the agency and complete prosecutorial reform. The meeting also included acting Prosecutor General Lee Jeong-hyun and acting Police Chief Kim Jong-cheol.
On the surface, the President's call for unbiased investigations from heads of investigative agencies seems appropriate. However, the context raises concerns.
The Major Crimes Investigation Agency is tasked with investigating serious crimes, including those involving current power holders, and the same applies to the police. The prosecution agency is responsible for prosecuting these cases and maintaining them in court. Yet, the sight of their leaders sitting in a Cabinet meeting, sharing national policy directions and taking orders from the President, is unprecedented in previous administrations.
Moreover, the current relationship between the President and the investigative and prosecutorial agencies is unusual. President Lee is currently facing five criminal trials, including a consolidated case involving Daejang-dong, Wirye, Baekhyeon-dong, and Seongnam FC, allegations of misusing corporate credit cards in Gyeonggi Province, the Ssangbangwool North Korea remittance case (all in the first trial), a perjury case (on appeal), and a public election law case (in retrial). All these cases have been suspended since his inauguration.
In this context, the President's decision to regularly summon heads of investigative and prosecutorial agencies to Cabinet meetings raises questions. Beyond legal feasibility, it is crucial to maintain a clear 'distance' between the President and these agencies to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.
Last month, President Lee made a significant statement during a press conference, claiming to be a victim of "malicious investigative manipulation" and calling for an independent investigation through a special prosecutor, stating that if the agencies under his command were involved, it would lead to further misunderstandings. Yet, just a month later, he is regularly seating these agency heads at Cabinet meetings. This inconsistency raises concerns.
The fundamental purpose of prosecutorial reform is not to replace political prosecutors with other political prosecutors. It aims to prevent the abuse of investigative and prosecutorial powers by those in power and to ensure that related agencies do not feel beholden to political influences. The emergence of a 'political Major Crimes Investigation Agency' or 'political prosecution agency' in place of a political prosecutor is unacceptable.
However, President Lee's perspective appears to be moving in the opposite direction. On October 21, he stated on his social media that opposing the attendance of the prosecution and Major Crimes Investigation Agency heads at Cabinet meetings is "an unconstitutional argument." He argued that since both agencies are central administrative bodies under the President's command and supervision, their attendance is natural, and preventing it would be a dangerous notion of keeping investigative and prosecutorial agencies as "off-limits, extralegal sanctuaries." In a situation where concerns about conflicts of interest regarding his cases and the independence of investigative and prosecutorial agencies are greater than ever, he seems to view the essence of the issue solely through the lens of 'presidential authority.' This is a troubling situation.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.