Han Dong-hoon's Investigation Secret Leak? Boseong County Mayor's 'Double Contract' Controversy

The ruling party expressed concerns that there was not widespread public consensus regarding Yong's concurrent positions and requested a decision. In response, the Blue House chose a strategy to minimize political burden by having the candidate voluntarily resign instead of withdrawing the nomination.

Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok conveyed the ruling party's position to Yong and coordinated her resignation. Yong stated, "While there is nothing I am ashamed of, I was requested to make a decision by the ruling party, which expressed concerns that there was not widespread public consensus regarding my concurrent positions."

Through this resignation, there are also movements to emphasize solidarity with progressive forces and the will for political reform. Yong's resignation is interpreted as a choice to quell unnecessary political controversy and focus on promoting future reform agendas.

Governor Choo made remarks raising concerns about a rollback of prosecutorial reform, likening it to the Rhee Syng-man administration's appointment of pro-Japanese collaborators.

Governor Choo's public opposition provoked internal party criticism that it was fueling conflict within the progressive camp. This is analyzed as an expression of fundamental disagreement with the direction of prosecutorial reform promoted by the president.

Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok stated that "the era of dividing shares is over," presenting competitiveness as the guiding principle. In response, Chairman Cho Kuk strongly refuted this, calling it "punching a scarecrow."

Leader Kim Min-seok dismissed the Rebuilding Korea Party's demand for shares, emphasizing nominations and appointments centered on competitive individuals. This is interpreted as an intention to solidify the Democratic Party's leadership. In contrast, Chairman Cho Kuk criticized the Democratic Party's stance, emphasizing the Rebuilding Korea Party's independent identity and role.

The Rebuilding Korea Party's high-handed attitude could negatively impact the Democratic Party's supporter cohesion and approval ratings. The possibility of future conflict between moderates and hardliners within the Rebuilding Korea Party is also raised, which could act as a variable in the merger process between the two parties.

The police launched an investigation by summoning Assemblyman Kim Dong-a, the accuser, for questioning just three days after the complaint was assigned, thus escalating the investigation. Ministerial candidate Kim Seung-won claimed that Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon leaked sensitive investigation information about the candidate to external parties ahead of Ministry of Justice personnel appointments.

The police confirmed that the data released by Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon was classified information accessible only to those involved in the investigation. Accordingly, the police are tracking the leak's path by identifying six individuals within the investigation chain who had access to the data. Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon responded to these accusations on his SNS, calling them "groundless political accusations."

The possibility of identifying the leaker through an internal audit by the Ministry of Justice is also suggested. This incident raises serious concerns about the Ministry of Justice's confidential information management system and is expected to have significant political repercussions. The allegation of investigation secret leakage related to ministerial candidate Kim Seung-won has emerged as a serious matter that could affect Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon's political career.

Leaking investigation secrets is a serious crime that can obstruct fair investigations and infringe upon individual rights. The police have a responsibility to thoroughly investigate, uncover the truth, and severely punish those responsible. This incident is expected to serve as a wake-up call regarding the chronic issue of secret leaks in the political sphere.

Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon is expected to assert his innocence and actively defend himself. However, the allegation of investigation secret leakage could significantly damage his political standing. The political repercussions could grow further depending on the outcome of the police investigation.

In particular, an additional 25 million won in subsidies was paid to the coach in September, escalating the controversy. Criticism is being raised that Boseong County is responding indifferently to a matter under investigation.

Boseong County previously had a facility entrustment contract with the Yacht Association. However, it was revealed that the yacht coach established a separate corporation and re-signed a contract with Boseong County.

This involved a re-contract for the same facility within one year, raising questions about procedural issues and allegations of preferential treatment. Newstamsa raised questions about the background behind the coach, who is suspected of embezzlement of subsidies, leading this double contract.

Despite the existing contract with the Yacht Association, the coach signed a new entrustment contract with Boseong County through his own corporation. This is criticized as an act that severely undermines the transparency and fairness of facility operations.

This yacht is a type of dinghy yacht that moves solely by wind power.

It is known for providing a rare dinghy yacht practice environment in Korea and plays an important role in training Olympic athletes.

He pointed out that the facility and all equipment, including the Topaz yacht, were funded by public money.

Chairman Kim raised strong questions about the procedural issues involved in the yacht coach's sole entrustment contract for such a large-scale public facility. He argued that the coach's double contract was illegal and urged for the truth to be revealed.

Chairman Kim Soon-seok clarified that the facility is a public asset for regional sports development, not for private profit. Therefore, he stated that its exclusive operation by a specific individual cannot be tolerated.

Chairman Kim explained that the double contract came to light when a boat owner who had docked their yacht at the marina raised issues with the coach's behavior. When the boat owner questioned the marina's operating authority, Chairman Kim Soon-seok confirmed the double contract through a public information request.

At the time of the contract, the sports club was not even registered as a business, yet Boseong County entered into a contract with it. It was revealed that the corporate registration took place 6-8 months after the contract was signed. This supports the suspicion that Boseong County granted preferential treatment to a specific individual through unlawful procedures.

In August 2024, a yacht owner brought the issue to Chairman Kim Soon-seok, revealing the full story of the double contract. Chairman Kim Soon-seok raised the possibility of collusion between Boseong County and the yacht coach and demanded a thorough investigation.

The yacht coach claimed that he discussed the double contract directly with Chairman Kim Soon-seok and received the chairman's permission. He emphasized that he submitted all necessary documents and experience for the contract and that the court ruled it was not seal forgery.

However, Chairman Kim Soon-seok strongly refuted this, stating that he never gave consent for the documents and that the coach forged his seal. The reporters confirmed a 6-month difference between the contract signing and the seal's impression, raising questions about the coach's claims.

This truth controversy further exacerbates the transparency debate surrounding the double contract process between Boseong County and the yacht coach. Further verification of the specific details of the court ruling and any issues with the contract documents is needed.

The Boseong County official responsible at the time claimed that Chairman Kim Soon-seok personally came and authorized the marina entrustment contract. However, the official himself admitted that there was no actual documented consent procedure. While stating Boseong County's principle that contracts cannot be approved without the consignee's approval, he conceded that there were procedural flaws.

In particular, it was confirmed that a contract was made with a sports club even before it was legally established, which further raises questions about procedural legitimacy. The official shifted responsibility for this flawed contract to the provincial sports council, evading accountability for verification.

He stated, "Now that I've experienced it, I understand. If I had just gotten Chairman Kim Soon-seok's signature here, I wouldn't be going through this now, but there wasn't one, was there?" indirectly admitting his negligence. This substantiates that the official was careless in administrative procedures.

The responsible official's explanation, while admitting his mistake, attempts to shift blame and is criticized. He cannot avoid criticism for not recognizing the seriousness of the double contract and for responding indifferently. It is argued that this flawed contract management ultimately led to wasted county budget and allegations of preferential treatment.

Ultimately, the official's sloppy work and evasion of responsibility contribute to eroding trust in Boseong County's administration. This incident highlights the need for Boseong County to establish a transparent and fair administrative system.

He stated, "I will admit the parts I need to admit and have documented the parts that are not true," conveying his intention to actively explain his position.

Coach Kim submitted a recording where Chairman Kim Soon-seok allegedly demanded money, launching a counter-response. He is currently preparing to respond to the allegations after the completion of the prosecutor's investigation.

The reporter commented, "At that time, Chairman Kim Soon-seok was very surprised, but what could he do? So he was thoroughly investigated. But all ten cases resulted in no indictment," emphasizing that Chairman Kim had no legal issues despite persistent allegations.

His disciplinary reasons include assault and embezzlement, which disqualify him from coaching.

The reporter stated, "From '22 to '26, he's under heavy sanction for four years, so he's lost his qualification as a coach. He's someone who shouldn't be coaching," pointing out Coach Kim's inappropriate activities.

This shows serious flaws in his ethics and qualifications as a coach, raising concerns about the negative impact on students.

He refused to answer, stating that he had already left the department in charge.

The county official stated, "We shouldn't prioritize that. The people who matched it should handle it. We just supported the facility, didn't we?" shifting responsibility for the suspension of operations to the operators. This suggests that Boseong County is not fulfilling its oversight responsibilities for public projects.

Newstamsa reporters confirmed that Assistant Manager Ha, who was interviewed, was the immediate former official involved in this case.

Circumstantial evidence of cash being handed over before a holiday was found, which amplifies suspicions of quid pro quo related to project selection and entrustment. This incident raises questions about collusion between Boseong County officials and the yacht coach.

Yacht coach Kim admitted that he was under heavy sanction from the Korea Yacht Association from 2022 to 2026. However, he claimed that he did not directly coach during that period, and coaches handled the training exclusively.

The coach stated, "No, who said I coached? So you're trying to make me look bad, aren't you, reporter?" criticizing the reporters for reporting his disciplinary record. This can be interpreted as an attempt to evade his wrongdoing and shift blame to the media.

He explained, "Before the holiday, when the investigation talked about it, I thought, 'Oh, I received gift certificates from my child before the holiday, and they were there when I got home.'"

The official knew about the county mayor's approval and made remarks that seemed to indicate he trusted protection from higher-ups. He maintained a confident demeanor despite the investigative agency's inquiry, adding to the controversy.

The public official's admission of receiving bribes and his brazen attitude raise serious concerns about public service ethics. This is criticized as a clear example of lax discipline and corruption within Boseong County's public service.

A Boseong County official explained that the mayor was either away on a business trip to Beolgyo, suffering from enteritis, or unavailable for phone calls. This appears to be a deliberate evasion of reporters' inquiries.

Key figures in the mayor's office also avoided answering sensitive questions, such as issues related to his son's legal fees. Allegations of hiding inside the mayor's office have even surfaced, intensifying criticism of Boseong County Office's opaque administration.

The persistent absence of the mayor is criticized as showing a lack of responsibility for local issues. This can be criticized as infringing on citizens' right to know and undermining administrative transparency.

The evasion of answers by the mayor and key officials further amplifies the suspicions. A thorough investigation into the various corruption allegations related to the Boseong County Mayor is necessary at this time.

The reporter asked, "If the use of the building was entrusted, shouldn't it be handled by the entrusted person for the facility? Shouldn't approval be sought from them first before granting use approval?" pointing out improper business procedures. This indicates that the county office improperly conducted business with individuals who were not the original contractors. The need to clarify the practical responsibility for the double contract is raised.

He stated, "This is the first time I'm hearing about the sanction. Yes, I just heard it," claiming not to have been aware of the sanction.

However, reporters refuted the official's claim, citing previous reports and handover situations from his predecessor. This amplifies suspicions of poor information sharing within the Boseong County Office or intentional concealment of facts.

The fact that the responsible official was unaware of the sanction of a key project stakeholder reveals serious problems in Boseong County's administrative system. This is criticized as an example of the absence of responsible management and oversight.

The host stated, "We can't help but suspect Boseong County and Boseong County. Even if Coach Kim didn't do well and did bad things, it could have been stopped if Boseong County hadn't collaborated," emphasizing the county office's responsibility.

Through various circumstances, including the former association president's tip-off, it is possible to infer the background behind Boseong County Office's unreasonable administrative processing. This suggests suspected collusion between Boseong County and specific individuals.

The county office's condoning of the double contract and payment of subsidies is a clear violation of administrative procedures. This can be criticized as granting preferential treatment to specific individuals and wasting county funds. Serious concerns about Boseong County's transparency and fairness are raised.

This incident is an example of systemic problems in Boseong County's administration, and a thorough investigation and punishment of those responsible are required. Boseong County's efforts to restore public trust are urgently needed.