Prosecutor Park Sang-yong Alleges 'Special Prosecutor as Insurrectionist Force' Remark and Suspicion of Investigation into Lee Jae-myung

Concerns have been raised that Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-hyung's Namuwiki profile is unusually detailed. The profile contains extensive information, including his education, career, books, and papers, with specifics that would be difficult to know unless he had written them himself. The host commented, "But this overview, it looked like a table of contents for Sun-moon's works," questioning the abnormal length of the profile.

The special prosecutor's Namuwiki profile states that he has published 23 public achievements and over 130 papers. The host questioned, "What about the claim of having published 23 public achievements and over 130 papers?" pointing out the reliability of information regarding such extensive academic achievements. Additionally, there was a suggestion that the source of related photos and the accuracy of the information need verification.

Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-hyung's profile includes educational programs such as 'Korea University Museum Culture and Arts Advanced Course' in addition to typical degree programs. The host mentioned, "Korea University Museum, the Museum Culture and Arts Advanced Course," pointing out that listing such advanced courses as if they were formal degree programs is unusual.

The special prosecutor's profile includes a selectively compiled list of cases he handled as a judge that were published in the judicial precedents gazette. The host explained the meaning of the gazette, saying, "The judicial precedents gazette? Yes, there's something published by the Supreme Court with precedents." The fact that even the lead judge status, which is difficult for a third party to ascertain, is specified, raises questions about the source of this information.

It was pointed out that most of Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-hyung's papers are related to civil law and corporate rehabilitation, with a lack of criminal law papers. The host remarked, "It seems he has hardly any criminal law papers among the many he has written," questioning his expertise in criminal law as a special prosecutor. Furthermore, the special prosecutor's profile was last modified at 18:44 on June 14, shortly after the end of business hours, raising suspicions that he might have managed his profile during work hours.

Concerns were raised that investigations driven by excessive ambition are highly likely to lead to distorted outcomes. The host emphasized, "If an investigation is conducted based on ambition, it is bound to go wrong." There is a critical view of the special prosecutor's recent remarks and the lack of corresponding achievements, suggesting that this could undermine the credibility of the special prosecutor's investigation.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong strongly criticized the special prosecutor's 'insurrectionist force' remark as mere baseless rhetoric, lacking argument and reporting based on the five W's and one H for investigation results. He stated, "To simply talk about that content with such rhetorical statements and move on is truly unacceptable, and you must take responsibility for those words," emphasizing that the special prosecutor must be held accountable for such remarks. This calls for the weight of words spoken to the public and the corresponding sense of responsibility.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong raised serious concerns about the special prosecutor labeling targets of investigation as an 'insurrectionist force.' He retorted, "So, are you saying that you're branding certain citizens as an insurrectionist force, and that this insurrectionist force must be punished in some way?" He pointed out that labeling citizens as an insurrectionist force without legal basis and argument is an abuse of investigative power and a violation of character and reputation. Prosecutor Park urged the special prosecutor to argue his statements and clarify his exact position.

It was claimed that the Democratic Party plans to seriously discuss a 'fabricated indictment special prosecutor law' in the September regular session of the National Assembly. Prosecutor Park Sang-yong commented, "The Democratic Party is trying to push for this fabricated indictment special prosecutor, trying to create another special prosecutor. So, that's what they called the 'charges dismissal special prosecutor' then, right?" He anticipated that legislation granting the special prosecutor the power to dismiss charges would be proposed and passed. This analysis suggests that the special prosecutor would serve as an intermediate consumable for the purpose of dismissing charges.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong suggested that once a special prosecutor is established, cases from the National Office of Investigation (NSO) could be transferred to it. He expressed concern, "The moment a special prosecutor is created, those cases will all be transferred there. And then, they will just indict someone, including me, for no reason at all." This scenario suggests that disciplinary action and dismissal of prosecutors would be used to secure grounds for dismissing charges, and materials from an alleged illegal fact-finding committee could be used as evidence for special prosecutor indictments.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong revealed that he is currently under investigation by at least three agencies: the Ministry of Justice's inspection committee, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office fact-finding team, and the National Police Agency's NSO. He mentioned, "Last time I counted, it was about six places," explaining that including the special prosecutor, Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, he is under simultaneous investigation by a total of six agencies. This can be interpreted as an all-out pressure campaign against him.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong stated with 100% certainty that the Democratic Party would re-propose a special prosecutor in the September regular session of the National Assembly, even if the current special prosecutor's term expires. He said, "The special prosecutor's term expires today, right? But it will probably be revived soon. When September comes, that case will have to go there again." He argued that this aims for the Democratic Party to demand dismissal of charges, attempt to suspend the trial, and ultimately neutralize evidence through Lee Hwa-young's release.

It was claimed that the release of former Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young is a key strategic move to obscure evidence in the North Korean remittance case. Prosecutor Park Sang-yong emphasized, "Ultimately, the first destination of all this is Lee Hwa-young's release," criticizing it as no different from an attempt to silence, similar to the Daegang-dong appeal waiver case. He added that his own disciplinary action is also being used as a means to derail this case.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong proposed public verification and debate to investigative agencies, especially the special prosecutor's aides. He said, "Come out, and if you call me, I'll go anytime. Let's debate anywhere. If you say let's talk publicly, anyone can call me." He criticized the attitude of keeping information private under the pretext of official secrecy. Prosecutor Park demanded that it be clearly revealed to the public what is fabrication and what constitutes insurrection.

It was revealed that the Ministry of Justice's inspection committee members were replaced after the decision not to indict in the salmon party controversy. Prosecutor Park Sang-yong commented, "If they kept the inspection committee members as they were before the review, what if they said no again? So, they changed the inspection committee members." He claimed this was intended to increase the level of disciplinary action, aiming for a heavy penalty of suspension for two months or more. The analysis suggests that a suspension of two months would not be sufficient grounds for dismissing charges, so the purpose is to secure the legitimacy of charges dismissal through a resolution for dismissal or discharge.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong raised suspicions of intervention from higher authorities in the process of replacing the Ministry of Justice's inspection committee members. He retorted, "Wouldn't the Blue House have intervened in changing these inspection committee members?" He cited examples of intervention in the process of nominating Supreme Court justices, suggesting the possibility of Blue House involvement in the selection of inspection committee members. These suspicions raise serious questions about the independence and impartiality of the Ministry of Justice's inspection and reveal a critical view that political intervention cannot be ruled out. Concerns were expressed that the replacement of inspection committee members might have been carried out for a specific purpose, and that this could be seen as an act undermining procedural transparency.