Attorney Kang Dae-gyu: Kim Min-seok's 'Female Hitler' remark highly likely to constitute defamation

Attorney Kang viewed that this remark is highly likely to be considered defamation legally.

Attorney Kang Dae-gyu introduced a past Supreme Court precedent that supports the possibility of defamation. According to Seoul Central District Court precedent 2020Gojung2211, there was a case where a fine of 2 million won was imposed for using derogatory expressions such as 'cockroach,' 'hopeless,' and 'gugu mob' towards a politician. He explained that Representative Kim Min-seok's current remark was also a broadcast statement with public visibility, so it can be seen as a case where defamation applies.

He believes it falls into the category of defamation, expressing contempt for the other party, and that the term 'Hitler' could be considered defamatory in political circles worldwide.

As there is no possibility of agreement from the People Power Party, the Democratic Party's move to propose a 'resolution for urging' instead of an expulsion motion is interpreted as a political gesture within realistic constraints.

Attorney Kang Dae-gyu cited the case of former President Kim Young-sam's expulsion in 1979 as a precedent for the expulsion of a National Assembly member in constitutional history. Just as that expulsion strengthened Kim Young-sam's political standing and helped him become a presidential candidate, an attempt to expel Representative Lee Jin-sook could be perceived as political oppression, potentially solidifying Lee Jin-sook's claims in the public's mind. This suggests that political expulsion can have unintended negative consequences.

Attorney Kang Dae-gyu explained that the court likely ruled that the emergency arrest conditions were not met because the officer continued to commute to the office and had a fixed residence. The court ordered that an arrest warrant be obtained instead of an emergency arrest, but the possibility of a warrant being requested still remains if there is a concern about evidence destruction.

In the Jeju disappearance case, it was confirmed that all CCTV footage before June 19th was deleted, despite the preservation period being around 30 days and the disappearance report being made on May 15th. Attorney Kang Dae-gyu pointed out that even though the missing person's phone was on until the battery died, the police did not properly investigate cell tower data and tried to conclude the investigation early. These circumstances are fueling suspicions of a shoddy police investigation.

Attorney Kang Dae-gyu revealed that there are nearly 300 cases where a police sergeant, as mentioned earlier, falsely closed missing person cases. This suggests the possibility that similar sloppy investigations and false closures are spreading nationwide, not just in the Jeju case.

Regarding Representative Park Ji-won's remark, 'You can neither kill nor save the police. My real concerns have become reality,' Attorney Kang Dae-gyu criticized it as arrogant, viewing the police organization as a political tool. He referred to the Ilsan Police Station incident during former President Lee Myung-bak's era, which led to institutional improvements within the police, and emphasized the importance of respecting the police organization and ensuring its independence.

A significant problem identified is that many of these cases were closed via phone or other means without direct face-to-face contact. With a substantial proportion of these cases involving adult disappearances, structural issues are emerging, raising questions about the effectiveness of police investigations.

Attorney Kang Dae-gyu argued that the current system requires the restoration of the prosecutor's supplementary investigative powers or the re-establishment of the prosecutor's original investigative powers to check the police's work. This is because there is a concern about investigative gaps in crimes where the victim is not clear, such as drug offenses, gambling, and violations of the Political Funds Act. He also pointed out that a closed structure where fellow police officers investigate police misconduct can make it difficult to uncover the truth, emphasizing the importance of an external check system on police investigations. He added that without such a check system, protecting citizens' human rights and realizing justice may be difficult.

Attorney Kang Dae-gyu explained that the court's position was that since the defendants were different and the acts slightly varied, even if evidence came from Lee Jeong-geun's phone, separate warrants should have been obtained for each. This is where the practical customs of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and the court's interpretation clashed, and it appears the principle that illegally collected evidence must be excluded was applied.

This principle emphasizes procedural legitimacy in the criminal justice system; no matter how serious the crime, if there is illegality in the evidence collection process, that evidence loses its validity. He added that even in murder cases, if procedural violations are confirmed, an acquittal can be granted, even with other strong evidence.

Attorney Kang Dae-gyu pointed out that in a murder case, even with clear evidence such as a knife and CCTV footage, an acquittal could occur if the Miranda warning was not given during the arrest. He also cited a case where an acquittal was handed down in a repeat drunk driving incident due to the failure to complete an handover document, emphasizing the problem with the current criminal law system where even one illegal piece of evidence out of ten can lead to an acquittal for the entire case.

Attorney Kang Dae-gyu reminded that Representative Han Dong-hoon had read the contents of a recorded file in the National Assembly during the review of Representative Noh Woong-rae's arrest consent motion when he was Minister of Justice. He demanded that Representative Han Dong-hoon use this opportunity to recall his memory and fully disclose the recorded file or transcript. This criticizes the Democratic Party of Korea's arrogant attitude and suggests that the disclosure of the transcript could serve as a political defense for Representative Han Dong-hoon's political attacks.

These pieces of evidence contain all details meticulously written and specified, suggesting that the indictments against former leader Song Young-gil and Representative Noh Woong-rae were based on factual substance. He cited the fact that trials proceeded from the previous administration without any withdrawal of charges as supporting evidence.

The criticism was that despite making the decision to revoke nominations based on his own actions, he was transferring responsibility by implying that the prosecution's indictment was the reason for not receiving political life or nomination rights. This, combined with support from Representative Jung Cheong-rae, who is an agent for former Representative Noh Woong-rae's constituency, led to criticism of the political power dynamics. Attorney Kang Dae-gyu also emphasized that the President and political circles should refrain from commenting on court rulings, urging respect for the independence of the judiciary.