Yoon Ki-chan Criticizes Kim Seung-won and Raises Judicial Controversy

Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan stated that he confirmed this fact through a JoongAng Ilbo report and a Q&A document distributed by candidate Kim to ruling party lawmakers. He pointed out that this differs from previously disclosed information, creating room for controversy.

Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan expressed concern that the mechanism of oral treatments is complex, and the timing and manner of side effect occurrence have not yet been proven. He also criticized candidate Kim Seung-won's attitude of treating diarrhea or abdominal pain as minor. Yoon's argument is that the lack of sufficient proof regarding side effects means a risk still exists.

Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan emphasized legal and moral responsibility, stating that candidate Kim committed these acts by abusing his status and authority as a member of the National Assembly. He criticized Kim's attitude of blaming the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's judgment due to a lack of professional knowledge and raised concerns about a situation where private interests override the exercise of public authority. He argued that such behavior is a fundamental wrongdoing beyond the scope of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act or bribery.

This accusation is also linked to suspicions of concealing side effects during non-clinical trials, further highlighting the seriousness of the case.

He criticized Kim's expression as being excessively calm given the seriousness of the incident. He argued that anxiety or apology should be visible on his face in a situation where a major accident was nearly caused, expressing doubts about his understanding and agreement with public values.

He pointed out that while party dissolution falls under the Minister of Justice's purview, there are no grounds for the dissolution of the People Power Party in the current situation. Citing a past incident involving floor leader Choo Kyung-ho as an example, he emphasized that a model response would be to state that there are no grounds for dissolution.

He judged that even if the remark was made before his inauguration, it was an inappropriate statement for someone holding the ministerial position.

Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan pointed out that Kim's key keyword is 'prioritization of private interests,' where private relationships take precedence over public responsibility. He mentioned the issue of disguised address registration for educational purposes, as well as Kim's private connection with Judge Jung Mo and suspicions of avoiding arrest. He also raised suspicions that a social cooperative operated by Kim's spouse received preferential treatment.

Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan pointed out that candidate Kim, during his time as a National Assembly member, advocated for the withdrawal of prosecution in the president's personal trial, but after being appointed Minister of Justice, stated he had no such thoughts, indicating a change in his position. This shift in attitude could lead to credibility issues, he criticized.

He pointed out that the confirmation committee members excluded key witnesses such as Genencell's Kang Se-chan, Yang Su-jin, and the head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, even though they should have been summoned. He characterized this act as neglecting the public's desire for witness selection, constituting a breach of trust toward the public.

Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan believes that the request for renomination itself could be unconstitutional, and attaching the condition to 'recommend from those previously nominated' is even more problematic. He emphasized that this infringes upon the Chief Justice's constitutional authority and is an inappropriate pressure that goes against the intent of the Chief Justice's nomination power.

Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan warned that if the recommendation committee is not dissolved, a vicious cycle could occur where the president rejects unwanted candidates and continuously demands renomination. He expressed concern that this leaves open the possibility for the president to reject nominations until the desired outcome is achieved, which could lead to an infringement on judicial independence.

Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan pointed out that legislative attempts such as bills to increase the number of Supreme Court justices or pressure to enact laws punishing judicial distortion are direct threats to the judiciary. He expressed deep concern about a situation where the legislature shakes the constitutional system, mentioning the impeachment of judges. This is recognized as a serious issue that could undermine the judiciary's inherent authority and independence.

Furthermore, he argued that relevant provisions should be newly established during constitutional amendment to create a mechanism that can strongly protect judicial independence.

Solutions and future response scenarios for the Chief Justice nomination crisis were discussed. Vice Chairman Yoon Ki-chan predicted that the Chief Justice would, and should, form a new Supreme Court justice recommendation committee. However, he analyzed that announcing this immediately might be perceived as an escalation of conflict with the president, so a 'cooling-off period' is being observed. He predicted that appointing from existing candidates would be a humiliation for the judiciary, leading the Chief Justice to face two options: forming a new recommendation committee or resigning.