Arrest Warrant for Kim Byung-kee… Is DP Shielding a Reality?

It has been pointed out that the request for an arrest warrant for Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Byung-kee, made a year after the initial investigation, deviates from typical investigative practices. Especially, questions about the intent have arisen as the warrant was sought just before the start of the regular session of the National Assembly and parliamentary audits.

The long period of one year until the Special Investigation Department of the Prosecutor's Office requested the warrant differs from normal investigative procedures, and analysis suggests that at this point, the passage of a motion to consent to a lawmaker's arrest is virtually impossible, leading only to increased political bickering.

The prevailing view is that the passage of a motion to consent to Kim Byung-kee's arrest will be virtually impossible during the regular session of the National Assembly. This is because securing a majority vote in the National Assembly is realistically difficult.

Hwang Seong-wook, a lawyer, analyzed that if there was the will, a warrant could have been issued before the regular session or between provisional sessions, suggesting that the timing of the current warrant request might be a political offensive or a way to build justification for public support.

There is also an interpretation that this warrant request may be a strategy to highlight the Democratic Party's 'shielded Assembly' narrative rather than genuinely aiming for detention.

Suspicions have been raised that immediately after Yong Hye-in, a candidate from the Basic Income Party, took office as permanent representative, her parliamentary aides monopolized key party positions within the Basic Income Party. This has led to criticism that she effectively created a 'one-person party'.

The host pointed out, "As soon as Yong Hye-in herself became the permanent representative, all the parliamentary aides she had were made to take over all the key party positions of the Basic Income Party, thus creating a one-person party." Additionally, with her husband, Mr. Park, being elected to the supreme council, suspicions of a 'family party' have also been raised.

Yong Hye-in, a candidate, has denied allegations that she was a member of an underground organization of the Labor Party in the past. These allegations emerged based on specific testimony from a former chairperson of the Labor Party's Women's Committee.

The host explained, "The allegation they brought up was that she was a member of an underground organization within the Labor Party." It was pointed out that Yong's stance of wanting to clarify the matter at a parliamentary hearing without taking legal action is contradictory.

Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook criticized, "The very fact that someone who says they will talk about it at the hearing then denies it again is contradictory," and demanded a clear explanation regarding the allegations.

After the adjustment of investigative powers between the police and prosecution, the investigation system has changed significantly, causing greater confusion for the public. Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook explained the current situation, saying, "The investigation system has become such that you first undergo investigation by the police, and then once more by the prosecution."

In the past, police investigations were merely an initial stage for the prosecution's supplementary investigation, but now, the system has effectively changed into one where the police make the final decision on a case in what is essentially a single instance.

The adjustment of investigative powers between the police and prosecution has brought new risks to the public. Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook criticized the current situation, stating, "In the past, there was trust that even if perpetrators and victims were reversed, it could be properly explained at the prosecutor's office and reverted. But now, people feel firsthand the risk that even if perpetrators and victims are reversed, it will remain that way."

It is pointed out that in the past, there was an opportunity at the prosecutorial stage to correct inadequate investigations and accurately distinguish between perpetrators and victims, but now, due to inadequate police investigations, a structure has become entrenched where victims find it difficult to obtain redress.

The reality of crime victims facing difficulties due to inadequate police investigations has been revealed. Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook cited his personal experience, saying, "I also experienced it recently at the Seocho Police Station. Because they have to continue inadequate investigations, even from the perspective of crime victims, they have no choice but to hire lawyers to encourage police investigations."

This, coupled with the phenomenon of 'cases being dropped' due to an overload of police work, forces victims to incur additional costs and efforts to receive a proper investigation.

Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook emphasized that the public's fundamental right to trial means the right to receive one factual judgment and one legal judgment from a judge. He explained, "That is the content of the public's fundamental right to trial. It means the right to receive one factual judgment and one legal judgment from a judge."

The prosecutorial system was a mechanism where those qualified as judges would make at least a minimal judicial judgment, but it is pointed out that the current police non-prosecution decision is an exercise of power similar to an acquittal without judicial review, threatening to infringe upon the public's fundamental rights.

This creates a problem where if judicial judgment is insufficient at the investigation stage, it becomes difficult for citizens to obtain redress even if they face unfair situations.

Flaws in the current investigation system are also evident in objection statistics. Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook stated, "Nevertheless, if an objection is filed now, about 20% of the decisions are reversed, and the police change their conclusion."

The fact that about 20% of police decisions are reversed through objections suggests a lack of accuracy in initial investigations. Hwang mentioned that in his experience as a lawyer, the acquittal rate for cases indicted after reinvestigation during his time as a prosecutor trainee was 0%, raising concerns about the lowered credibility of the current system.

It has been pointed out that applying artificial intelligence (AI) to the legal field has limitations due to its characteristic as an area of value judgment. Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook warned about the risk of AI hallucination, stating, "The most fatal weakness of AI is hallucination; it lies constantly."

AI has a high possibility of generating false information, which can lead to a lack of reliability in the legal field where factual comparison is crucial. Since law goes beyond simply judging facts to understanding social values and contexts, it is analyzed that AI, at its current technological level, cannot perfectly replace human judgment.

The '100-Day Miracle' program promoted by the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education is causing controversy. This program selects excellent students who refrain from using smartphones for 100 days and record their efforts, rewarding them with an exploration trip to China.

Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook explained and raised concerns, saying, "Students declare how little they will use their cell phones for 100 days, record their daily lives, and if they do well for 100 days, outstanding students are sent not for training, but for an exploration trip to China."

The problem lies not in the students' practice of refraining from smartphones, but in selecting China, a country with strict human rights and digital controls, as the destination for the reward. Experts criticize such a policy as inappropriate.

China is a country where extensive surveillance systems are applied, and questions are growing about the educational appropriateness of sending students into such an environment.

Concerns have been raised about the exposure of students' personal information in relation to the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education's student China exploration program. Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook strongly criticized, "Why are we inputting the data of 100 bright Korean students into China's database in such a surveillance society?"

It is pointed out that China operates extensive surveillance systems, including facial recognition, and there is a risk that visiting students' personal information could be registered in China's databases. The problematic nature of this policy is highlighted, contrasting with a global trend of avoiding travel to China.

Gyeonggi Superintendent of Education Lim Tae-hee's move into an official residence with a 1.2 billion won 'jeonse' (a unique Korean housing lease system) deposit is causing controversy. With Gyeonggi Province cutting various welfare budgets due to financial difficulties, the Superintendent's expensive official residence is hard to defend.

Lawyer Hwang Seong-wook pointed out, "Gyeonggi Province talked about declaring a moratorium and how dire its finances were, cutting various welfare budgets. Yet, the Superintendent himself is moving into a 1.2 billion won jeonse official residence."

This contrasts with the trend of other local government heads eliminating or reducing official residences, drawing public outrage and criticism that it contradicts efforts to secure fiscal soundness.