Democratic Party Suspects Han Dong-hoon's Recording Came From Prosecution Case Files
On the 5th, the Democratic Party of Korea raised the possibility that the phone recording independent Rep. Han Dong-hoon deployed in his offensive against Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won was prosecutorial investigative material, demanding that its source be disclosed. In a written briefing that day, the party took issue with the very premise of the attack. Floor spokesperson Kim Seong-hoe criticized, “Driving forward with the conclusion already fixed before the confirmation hearing has even begun is not verification but a mere political offensive,” adding, “They are branding a nominee whom even the Yoon Suk-yeol government's prosecution could not indict.”
When the People Power Party invoked bribery allegations tied to suspicions that approval had been solicited for clinical trials of a COVID-19 drug candidate, the party brushed the claim aside, saying, “No money or valuables ever changed hands.” Spokesperson Kim countered, “The Yoon Suk-yeol government's prosecution investigated on all fronts but ultimately could not indict,” asking, “Are they now going to deny the conclusion of the very prosecution they once commanded?”
The criticism also turned on People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyeok, a former judge. Floor spokesperson Kim said, “They are working themselves into a frenzy to convict nominee Kim when even the courts did not,” adding, “If they so badly want to hand down a verdict, they should put their judicial robes back on.” He went on to point out, “The public is no longer fooled by the tactic of releasing only favorable excerpts while hiding unfavorable context,” before adding, “What the public wants to know is the expertise and competence of the nominee who will lead the new criminal justice system.”
The rebuttal aimed directly at Rep. Han Dong-hoon was left to spokesperson Cho Kye-won. Responding to Han's claim of a “special relationship” among nominee Kim, the broker surnamed Yang, and Jung, the judge handling warrants, Cho said, “Before parsing other people's relationships, he should first account to the public for his own relationship with Kim Keon Hee.” “The truly special relationship is with the person he exchanged 332 KakaoTalk messages with over three months as a chief prosecutor,” he said, pointing to Kim Keon Hee, who has been accused of holding sway as an unofficial power in the administration impeached over insurrection. He pressed further: “What standing does someone have to lecture anyone when, during his own investigation, he set a password of more than 20 characters on his cellphone and stonewalled prosecutors' attempts to open it?” and asked, “When will he answer the public's demand to reveal the truth of the insurrection?”
The person who lent weight to the suspicion over the recording's source was Supreme Council member Jeon Yong-gi. On Facebook, Jeon asked, “How on earth did they obtain the recording of the call between nominee Kim and Mr. Yang?” noting, “It appears to be internal material that would be difficult to access unless it came from the person involved or an investigative agency.” He then urged, “Could prosecutorial case files really have leaked to Rep. Han, himself a former prosecutor and former justice minister?” adding, “Before demanding answers from others, he should first clearly explain how he obtained the recording.”
Legal action was also signaled. On Facebook, Rep. Kim Dong-a offered the assessment that releasing a recording of unknown provenance and leaking investigative secrets would constitute the crimes of disclosing official secrets, defamation through the publication of false facts, and publicizing suspicions of criminal conduct. The offense of disclosing official secrets punishes public officials who leak secrets learned in the course of their duties. “We are collecting and analyzing evidence,” Kim said, adding, “We will respond swiftly.”
