The candidates for Minister of Justice have been narrowed down to Park Kyun-taek and Yang Boo-nam, both members of the Democratic Party. The new minister will face a daunting agenda as the prosecution office has been abolished and the new Public Prosecution Service and Serious Crimes Investigation Agency have just been established. It is essential to ensure that the new criminal justice system, which separates investigation and prosecution, operates effectively. The minister must secure the political independence of the Public Prosecution Service and clarify the powers and responsibilities between the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the police. Additionally, delays in investigations, case handovers, and gaps in victim protection must be addressed.
As a candidate for Minister of Justice, it is expected that these issues will be scrutinized. However, there is a significant black hole that absorbs all questions: the 'indictment cancellation' related to President Lee Jae-myung's case.
Representative Park participated in the legal defense of President Lee regarding the Baekhyeon-dong, Seongnam FC, and North Korean remittance cases, while Representative Yang served as the legal committee chair during Lee's tenure as party leader, engaging in responses to judicial risks. Given their involvement in the president's legal matters, it is unavoidable that they will be questioned about how they will handle the president's case. Furthermore, the issue of indictment cancellation is a serious matter concerning the political independence of investigative and prosecutorial agencies.
However, no matter how definitive answers are provided by the candidates, the controversy seems unlikely to dissipate. The case of former candidate Kim Seung-won illustrates this point. When asked whether he would instruct a review of the indictment cancellation regarding President Lee's case, Kim stated that he would handle his duties fairly according to laws and regulations while maintaining the political neutrality of the prosecution. In a separate interview, he indicated that the decision to maintain the indictment was up to the prosecutor in charge, suggesting he had no intention of exercising his authority. Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding the indictment cancellation did not disappear.
Why is that? It is because President Lee himself left 'room' for doubt.
During a press conference on September 18, a reporter asked the president for his stance on claims that he should publicly state he would not seek indictment cancellation for his own case or at least promise to face trial after his term ends.
President Lee questioned the nature of past investigations by the prosecution, including his own case. He stated, "I have knowledge of the facts," and claimed that the previous administration conducted investigations and prosecutions for political purposes. He also maintained that a separate investigation into the facts was necessary.
However, he did not answer the question about whether he would face trial after his term. This gap is the fundamental reason why the controversy over indictment cancellation persists. Without a definitive answer from the president, every time a new Minister of Justice is appointed, the question of how to handle this case will inevitably arise.
This is not to say that the president's claims of politically motivated prosecution should be dismissed. Investigations can be conducted, and if illegal investigations are confirmed, accountability must be enforced. However, the determination of the president's guilt or innocence should be left to the courts. Therefore, the necessary statement is not complicated: "The determination of my guilt or innocence will be made by the court after my term ends." This single sentence would suffice.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.