Lee Jin-sook Sues Democratic Party Leader Kim Min-seok for 'Insult,' Stating "'Female Hitler' Remark Was a Personal Attack"

She specified that Kim Min-seok's remarks, labeling her a 'female Hitler' during the party leadership race, were the reason for the lawsuit. Lee Jin-sook clearly stated her position, emphasizing that this lawsuit is a legal response to a personal attack that goes beyond political activity.

Lawyer Lim Moo-young emphasized, "Chairman Kim Min-seok's remarks against Representative Lee Jin-sook were not in the realm of verification or criticism, but were made with the political intention of attacking Representative Lee Jin-sook to win the party leadership race, and thus with an insulting intent. Therefore, it clearly constitutes an illegal act." The legal team determined that Chairman Kim's remarks were a personal attack driven by a political intention to win the party leadership race, which clearly falls under illegal activity.

Lee Jin-sook avoided a direct answer regarding the possibility of withdrawing the lawsuit if Chairman Kim Min-seok apologizes. She stated, "First, as a politician and a representative of a party, Chairman Kim Min-seok ought to apologize to me. I will make a decision on matters thereafter once I receive an apology." This statement suggests that while an apology is demanded, the decision regarding the lawsuit's withdrawal will be made after the apology.

Lee Jin-sook strongly rebutted the logic that debate hosts should share responsibility for remarks made during a debate, calling it a "very dangerous idea." She stated, "I have never heard such a thing as a debate host being jointly responsible for the content that comes out of a debate." Lee Jin-sook pointed out that such a claim is tantamount to demanding prior censorship of remarks before holding a debate, which is a very dangerous idea that harms the free forum of discussion.

She said, "Today, I sued Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, on charges of insult," citing Kim Min-seok's characterization of her as 'female Hitler' during the party leadership election as the reason for the lawsuit.

Lee Jin-sook strongly refuted the Democratic Party's claim that Chairman Kim Min-seok's 'female Hitler' remark was 'political rhetoric.' She said, "A Democratic Party lawmaker said it was political rhetoric, but I think this remark is very serious." Lee Jin-sook questioned whether insulting remarks against others, citizens, and lawmakers can be tolerated merely because they are political rhetoric, and criticized the current situation where even the debate host is being problematized.

Lawyer Lim Moo-young stated, "Chairman Kim Min-seok's remarks against Representative Lee Jin-sook were not in the realm of verification or criticism, but were made with the political intention of attacking Representative Lee Jin-sook to win the party leadership race, and in that process, without any intention of verification or criticism, but with an insulting intent. Therefore, it clearly constitutes an illegal act." The legal team emphasized that while general criticism of politicians should be broadly allowed, these remarks were a deliberate insult with the intention of winning the party's internal election and constitute a clear illegal act.

She explained, "This is actually to make the legal procedure for the 'female Hitler' part much simpler." This is interpreted as a strategic decision considering the efficiency of legal procedures.

She said, "I believe that a politician, especially a member of the National Assembly, must possess dignity in their language. Furthermore, a party leader can be said to represent the people." Lee Jin-sook pointed out that Chairman Kim Min-seok's remarks, which insulted her during the election campaign, undermined this dignity.

Lawyer Lim Moo-young stated, "If an ordinary citizen raised some issues with Representative Lee Jin-sook's remarks and used such expressions, it could be seen as bordering on insult. However, in the case of Chairman Kim Min-seok, his remarks against Representative Lee Jin-sook were not in the realm of verification or criticism. Instead, he made these remarks with the political intention of attacking Representative Lee Jin-sook to win the party leadership race, and with an insulting intent, making it a clear illegal act." He argued that while criticism of politicians by the general public should be broadly allowed, Chairman Kim's remarks were a deliberate attack with a political purpose, exceeding the intent of verification or criticism, and thus constituted a clear act of insult. Therefore, he concluded that the remarks clearly amount to an illegal act.

Lee Jin-sook's legal counsel determined that Chairman Kim Min-seok's remarks constituted an insult. Lawyer Lim Moo-young explained, "Chairman Kim Min-seok's remarks against Representative Lee Jin-sook were not in the realm of verification or criticism, but were made with the political intention of attacking Representative Lee Jin-sook to win the party leadership race, and in that process, without any intention of verification or criticism, but with an insulting intent. Therefore, it clearly constitutes an illegal act." He emphasized that while politicians should be open to broad verification and criticism, Chairman Kim's remarks were made with an insulting intent to win an internal party election and constitute a clear illegal act.

She said, "First, as a politician and a representative of a party, Chairman Kim Min-seok ought to apologize to me. I will make a decision on matters thereafter once I receive an apology." This indicates that Chairman Kim Min-seok's apology must precede any further action, and subsequent responses, including the withdrawal of the lawsuit, will be decided after an apology.

She said, "That's not for me to say. First, as a politician and a representative of a party, Chairman Kim Min-seok ought to apologize to me. I will make a decision on matters thereafter once I receive an apology." Lee Jin-sook repeatedly stated that an apology is paramount, and she would assess the situation afterward, thus avoiding a direct response.

She said, "I've heard of an economic community in my life, but now they're calling it an ideological community and defining it as a crime, and I've never heard of a debate host being jointly responsible for the content that comes out of a debate." Lee Jin-sook argued that it is a dangerous totalitarian idea for a debate host to have to pre-censor a speaker's remarks, and that the debate was a forum for verifying new information.

She stated, "This is actually to make the legal procedure for the 'female Hitler' part much simpler." This is interpreted as a strategic choice to reduce the complexity of legal procedures and focus on the core issues.

She stated, "Today, I sued Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, on charges of insult," and added, "During the party leadership campaign, Chairman Kim Min-seok labeled me a female Hitler and used insulting language against me." Lee Jin-sook strongly criticized the Democratic Party's claim of 'political rhetoric,' asking, "Why am I a female Hitler?" She pointed out that South Korea is not a totalitarian state like the Stalinist regime and emphasized that such remarks are a very serious issue.

She stated, "First, as a politician and a representative of a party, Chairman Kim Min-seok ought to apologize to me." Lee Jin-sook indicated that she would decide on subsequent actions after Chairman Kim's apology, suggesting the lawsuit will continue.

Lee Jin-sook re-emphasized that not all presenters' remarks align with her own thoughts and asserted that claims infringing on the freedom of debate are unjust.

He stated, "In Chairman Kim Min-seok's case, his remarks against Representative Lee Jin-sook were not in the realm of verification or criticism. Instead, he made these remarks with the political intention of attacking Representative Lee Jin-sook to win the party leadership race, and with an insulting intent, making it a clear illegal act." The attorney argued that Chairman Kim's remarks went beyond the realm of criticism and constituted a deliberate attack aimed at winning the election, which is clearly an illegal act.

This rebuttal concerns the theory of joint responsibility for distorting the May 18th Uprising and advocating for Chun Doo-hwan's restoration.

She stated, "Today, I sued Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, on charges of insult," and added, "Chairman Kim Min-seok labeled me a female Hitler and used insulting language against me during the party leadership campaign." Representative Lee Jin-sook clearly stated that she has categorized Chairman Kim's remarks as personal denigration and has initiated legal action.

She stated, "This is actually to make the legal procedure for the 'female Hitler' part much simpler." This emphasizes that it is a strategic choice to reduce the complexity of the litigation process and clarify legal issues.

She stated, "Today, I sued Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, on charges of insult," and took issue with Chairman Kim's designation of her as 'female Hitler' during the party leadership campaign. Lee Jin-sook dismissed such remarks as clear acts of insult, not political rhetoric, and clarified her position.