The alleged 600 million won lobbying scandal mentioned by Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon was ruled not guilty by the court, raising the possibility that his claim was biased towards the prosecution's view.
While the court found guilt in the embezzlement charges related to Genencell and CNF shares, it did not recognize a direct quid pro quo relationship between specific lobbying activities and clinical approval. This ruling shows a different legal judgment from Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon's public claims.
The prosecution acknowledged the rapid approval of Genencell's clinical trials, considering the special circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The prosecution determined that there was no evidence to prove collusion between the head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety and Genencell, thus not acknowledging the provision of preferential treatment.
This difference in positions is interpreted as stemming from differing interpretations of evidence in judicial procedures.
There is a possibility that Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon, who served as Minister of Justice, relied solely on the prosecution's perspective when making his claims. He may have overlooked that the court's final judgment could differ from the prosecution's.
On September 3, Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon claimed on Facebook that Genencell's clinical approval occurred before the deadline for supplementary requests. However, another post quoting Assemblyman Kim Seung-won's statement specified that a supplementary request was made on September 30, final supplementary materials were received on October 18, and approval was granted on October 26.
This implies that approval was granted after receiving supplementary materials. Assemblyman Han Dong-hoon presented two contradictory pieces of information on the same matter.
Such claims could draw criticism for failing to grasp the accurate flow of events or selectively presenting information to fit a specific viewpoint. It is necessary to clearly verify the facts before raising suspicions.
Inconsistencies in information can confuse the public and affect the credibility of a public figure's statements.
Answers come from the transcript, with the exact spot cited.
Want the next video from 뉴탐사 NewTamsa too?
When 뉴탐사 NewTamsa publishes, we'll write it up like the one you just read and email it to you.
뉴탐사 NewTamsa published 106 in the last 7 days.
We skip Shorts. You can unfollow any time.
