Prosecutor Park Sang-yong Alleges “Forced Investigation by Special Prosecutor is Rumor, Travel Ban Without Investigative Authority is Illegal”

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong revealed that the Special Prosecutor's claims of intervention in the investigation were rumors from the beginning, arguing that the Special Prosecutor's claim of a massive state affairs manipulation was merely to make it appear as if they had investigative authority. He explained that the Special Prosecutor's investigative authority only applies if the case was distorted or fabricated due to the involvement of President Yoon Suk-yeol and First Lady Kim Keon-hee, a condition that has not currently been met.

Nevertheless, he criticized the Special Prosecutor for enforcing a travel ban against him without investigative authority, emphasizing that this is clearly illegal.

It was revealed that the comprehensive Special Prosecutor's six-month, 180-day investigation concluded without significant results. Major investigative targets, such as the North Korea remittance case and the Yangpyeong case, were ultimately transferred to the National Scientific Investigation Bureau (NSBI).

The host pointed out that this has made the argument for the Special Prosecutor's ineffectiveness a reality, mentioning that criticism is spreading that the Special Prosecutor failed to achieve its original purpose and only wasted investigative time.

The Special Prosecutor claimed that allegations of the Presidential Office's cover-up and manipulation of the case were subject to its investigation. However, Prosecutor Park Sang-yong strongly refuted these claims, dismissing them as a "lie."

Prosecutor Park explained that if the Presidential Office had ordered intervention in the case, he, as the actual subject creating the case, should have received such an order, but he never did. He emphasized that since there was no direct order to the investigating body, the Special Prosecutor's claims are fundamentally invalid.

It was pointed out that a travel ban imposed without investigative authority constitutes a clear violation of human rights. The host raised concerns by mentioning that despite former Minister Han Dong-hoon (currently a member of the National Assembly) requesting the lifting of the travel ban before the election, the Special Prosecutor extended it.

It was emphasized that such measures could be seen as circumstances suggesting election interference and could escalate into serious criminal issues that could lead to legal accountability.

The Special Prosecutor claimed that the President intervened in, directed, and received reports on the Suwon District Prosecutor's Office's investigation into the Ssangbangul North Korea remittance case, designating it as a subject of investigation. However, it was revealed that the line prosecutor who handled the investigation was never once summoned for questioning.

The host strongly criticized this as contradictory, arguing that the Special Prosecutor claimed to have confirmed evidence of presidential intervention yet failed to even summon the key figure, the prosecutor, who participated in the actual investigation. This amplifies doubts about the Special Prosecutor's sincerity and procedural legitimacy.

After the 180-day (six-month) comprehensive special prosecutor's investigation period ended, Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-hyung stated, "The war with the traitorous forces has just begun. It is a long war. This is just the beginning." This is interpreted as an attempt to evade responsibility and shift the narrative when faced with criticism regarding the investigation's outcome.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong criticized the Special Prosecutor for not taking responsibility for the investigative failure and attempting to obfuscate the essence of the investigation by using the vague term 'traitorous forces' to muddy the waters.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong raised questions about the definition and specific targets of the term 'traitorous forces' mentioned by Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-hyung, criticizing that it is not clearly stated who these forces are. He argued that the Special Prosecutor is causing national confusion by using ambiguous expressions.

Furthermore, Prosecutor Park criticized the Special Prosecutor, who as a legal professional should clearly state investigative results and make legal judgments, for engaging in political incitement. He pointed out that the Special Prosecutor is focusing more on criticizing certain groups than on their inherent role in investigation, emphasizing that this goes against the principles of the rule of law.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong questioned the professionalism of Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-hyung, pointing out that Kwon's list of papers contained almost no criminal law-related articles, focusing instead on civil areas such as maritime law, labor standards law, and civil enforcement law. This led to criticism of a lack of professionalism as a special prosecutor in charge of criminal investigations.

In addition, Prosecutor Park raised concerns that Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-hyung showed a lack of focus on his duties, such as modifying his personal profile during the investigation period. This raises doubts about the sincerity and efficiency of the Special Prosecutor's investigation.

Democratic Party Senior Spokesperson Park Sung-joon announced on MBC Radio that the Democratic Party plans to seriously discuss the 'Fabricated Indictment Special Prosecutor Act' in the upcoming September regular session of the National Assembly. Spokesperson Park emphasized the need for deliberation and processing of the bill in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong claimed that this bill, promoted by the Democratic Party, is a move to dismiss his indictment. He analyzed that the Democratic Party is hoping for a higher level of disciplinary action against him to secure grounds for dismissing the indictment.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong stated that a two-month suspension is insufficient to secure grounds for dismissing his indictment. He argued that at least serious misconduct warranting his dismissal or removal must be found to make indictment dismissal possible.

He presumed that the Ministry of Justice's Inspection Committee would have decided on his dismissal or removal, mentioning that the level of disciplinary action would significantly influence the Ministry of Justice's decision on indictment dismissal.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong pressed the Ministry of Justice on whether the Blue House was pre-briefed during the appointment process of the Inspection Committee members, raising suspicions. He questioned whether the Inspection Committee members were appointed in consultation with the Blue House.

Prosecutor Park strongly warned that if Inspection Committee members were changed or appointed under the direction of the Blue House, it would constitute a massive state affairs manipulation and could be grounds for presidential impeachment. He emphasized that this aspect must also be investigated.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong strongly criticized discussions on constitutional amendments related to presidential terms, such as a four-year consecutive term system, as being contrary to the spirit of the constitution. He mentioned that even within the current ruling party, there are voices pointing out such amendment attempts as 'escape-type amendments.'

Prosecutor Park argued that the act of the President opening up the possibility of their own re-election is itself clearly unconstitutional. He emphasized that attempts at constitutional amendment for the extension of a power holder's term undermine the fundamental principles of democracy.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong strongly criticized Democratic Party member Kim Nam-hee for showing a duplicitous attitude by faulting the prosecution for investigative shortcomings, despite having previously voted in favor of the investigative authority adjustment bill. He pointed out the contradiction by asking Kim, "You passed it, so why are you blaming the police?"

Prosecutor Park criticized the current situation, where all investigative functions previously held by the prosecution have been removed by current law, and now members of the National Assembly are faulting the prosecution, as unrealistic and theatrical. He emphasized that the current situation where the prosecution's oversight function has been paralyzed after the police gained independent investigative authority, and argued that those responsible for passing the bill should take a responsible stance on this situation.

It was pointed out that a problematic situation has arisen due to the investigative authority adjustment bill, where the police have secured independent investigative authority, but appropriate oversight functions have been paralyzed. Prosecutor Park Sang-yong raised his voice in criticism, stating that Representative Kim Nam-hee's inquiry ignores this reality.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong pointed out the police's practice of prioritizing convenience in processing cases, arguing that the internal 'self-conclusion' system causes problems. He expressed concern that the current system lacks mutual verification procedures, which could lead to a lack of transparency in case handling.

Prosecutor Park emphasized that to resolve such systemic issues, an external oversight mechanism is absolutely necessary for someone to review those cases together. He predicted that without institutional improvements, similar irregularities would persist, and it would be difficult to effectively respond to incidents such as the recent increase in random crimes.

While Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae emphasized the 'rule of law' and asserted the judiciary's independence, Prosecutor Park Sang-yong expressed a critical stance on the President's exercise of judicial personnel authority. He specifically pointed out that attempts to interfere even with the Chief Justice's power to recommend Supreme Court justices are unacceptable.

Prosecutor Park emphasized that the composition of Supreme Court justices is constitutionally balanced, and expressed concern that the President's exercise of appointment power could undermine this constitutional balance. This leads to a debate that highlights the complex point of conflict between judicial independence and democratic legitimacy.

Prosecutor Park Sang-yong emphasized that power being subject to legal control ultimately means being subject to public control. He expressed his profound dismay as a legal professional regarding the current situation and underscored the importance of public interest and scrutiny to uphold the rule of law.

Prosecutor Park urged citizens to assertively question and voice concerns about unjust abuses of power. This conveys a message that the public must actively participate to ensure the rule of law prevails.