“A Gate That Will Topple the Regime Has Opened”

He explained that ordinarily, investors hold onto shares before positive news, not sell them. He suggested that the major shareholder either knew in advance about the possibility of approval failure or anticipated the company's value would be damaged and rushed to dispose of their shares.

He argued that a person in power intervening and directing prompt processing for a specific civil complaint harms the fairness of administrative procedures and destroys administrative trust.

Attorney Kim viewed this stance as merely an excuse to cover up the pursuit of private gain.

Attorney Kim Jeong-cheol presented a specific timeline for the stock manipulation allegations. On October 12, 2021, a complaint was submitted to the Minister of Food and Drug Safety. On October 19, Sejong Medical invested 11.3 billion won in Genecell. Surprisingly, clinical approval was granted on October 26, and on the same day, related consortia were dissolved. Attorney Kim stated that the sale of shares began in earnest on October 26 and 27, asserting that this process was a meticulously planned flow of stock manipulation.

He pointed out that this means they were ready to sell shares in installments before the disclosure was publicly known, which could be seen as evidence of using undisclosed information.

Attorney Kim suggested that Congressman Kim might have made this excessive data request with the intention of checking whether his accounts were being tracked or to deter the investigation. He questioned whether Congressman Kim was trying to reduce the financial authorities' investigative activities by demanding an excessive number of cases.

Attorney Kim Jeong-cheol explained that the core of financial crime is politicians or celebrities instilling 'trust' in the public. He cited the case of former Minister Yoo Si-min, who, through lectures, built trust with investors in the Value Investment Korea (VIK) case, thus spreading the damage. He claimed there are indications that Democratic Party officials and powerful figures in the administration were involved in the Lime and Optimus cases, facilitating financial fraud.

Attorney Kim Jeong-cheol raised suspicions of preferential redemptions for influential figures in the Lime Asset Management case. He explained that the main perpetrators of the fund provided conveniences such as guaranteed immediate redemptions and reduced fees to powerful figures like the son-in-law of former Prime Minister Kim Boo-kyum. In contrast, general investors faced discriminatory treatment, with redemptions restricted as per agreement, highlighting the unfairness of fund management.

He explained that this recording includes content about the presidential office protecting the Lime Fund and claims that the Financial Supervisory Service's investigation was also concluded. Due to these circumstances, he raised suspicions that the investigation at the time was not properly conducted and failed to delve into the core issues.

He explained that a face-saving warrant request means submitting an application with flimsy content that the court is bound to reject. He emphasized that if the warrant for Congressman Kim Byung-kee is rejected, it cannot be ruled out that the warrant was filed with insufficient grounds from the outset, thus requiring close observation of the process.

Attorney Kim Jeong-cheol pointed out that as financial crime methods become more diverse and complex, it is difficult for ordinary investigators to track them. He stressed that only specialized capabilities, such as those of the joint securities crime investigation unit that was at the Southern District Prosecutor's Office, can understand and respond to these crime methods. He anticipated that it would be very difficult for the National Police Agency to investigate such complex cases and emphasized the need for a specialized investigative agency.

He explained that even if the police detain a suspect for a serious crime, the prosecutor cannot maintain the detention due to lack of investigative authority. He stated that under the current system, detention for maintaining prosecution could be deemed illegal and lead to release, and a constitutional appeal could also be filed.

He conveyed that Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun, who had worked as a prosecutor for over 10 years, was surprised and found such a case unprecedented. Attorney Kim explained that DUI cases are generally detected immediately at the scene, making it difficult to understand a situation where the statute of limitations is imminent.

He stated that over time, evidence can be destroyed or the memories of those involved can fade, making it difficult to uncover the truth. He warned that if investigative agencies do not take active measures in a timely manner, victim recovery may become impossible.

This delay in trials is causing a phenomenon of avoiding lawsuits, and a self-deprecating opinion is spreading in the legal community that now is a good time for criminals to operate.

This could be perceived as mudslinging against individuals, potentially obscuring the true nature of the case. It was pointed out that it is important to pursue a special prosecutor based on concrete evidence, such as presenting key recordings related to the crime, and that the use of provocative terms could hinder essential investigations.