Kim Min-seok vs. Jeong Cheong-rae: Leadership Race Overheats in Mutual Attacks

They argued there was no reason to cite the broadcast because the report explicitly labeled the source as the regional affairs department, and they accused people of using the report as a 'targeting' tool.

He said the chairman himself had edited his own photo to appear alongside the president, made it into an album, and is using it as promotional material. The photo was also reported by OhmyNews, and the chairman has been displaying it framed to promote himself.

Gu said the chairman edited his own picture to appear with President Lee and that this should be seen as marketing rather than manipulation. He also stressed that the chairman is actively using the photo for promotion.

This explanation appears intended to quell the 'manipulation' suspicion by framing the matter as 'editing.'

The camp said it spoke with Park Sun-won and others but saw no sign of remorse, so it will file civil and criminal complaints and hold the lawmakers and YouTubers involved accountable. Its position is that supporting a particular candidate is free, but spreading false claims that brand it as a plot or manipulation is unacceptable.

The camp stressed 'there is no leniency,' saying 'neither Park Sun-won nor Kim Yong is acceptable.' This is read as a signal of a hard line against smears and false claims during the election.

They assumed that once the party abandons its values and moves rightward, centrist voters will be secured and existing Democratic supporters will naturally follow, critics noted.

It stressed that winning their support takes time and requires sustained effort from the party. It also criticized claims that some people can easily win the 20s–30s vote while claiming to speak for youth politics, calling them mere personal ambition.

The camp added that support from voters in their 20s and 30s cannot be achieved in the short term and must be built gradually through steady effort and sincerity. This view contrasts with the position of some anti-Lee members that the party's policy shifts or a particular figure's emergence alone can secure youth support.

It argued that those who use youth politics as a path to a party badge should instead build trust through real effort, not ambition. Winning the hearts of voters in their 20s and 30s, it said, is a long-term task.

The position forms one side of a broader debate within the party over how to interpret and pursue the youth vote.

An aide said it was not desirable for the expression to become public and said only that it came up naturally in the conversation. This has further fueled curiosity about what 'Tong's thinking' refers to.

This has fed criticism that the prime minister tried to override the president's wishes for his own political aims. Critics note that the prime minister's job is to carry out the president's will, so attempting to distort the merger intention itself could be read as excessive self-serving politics.

The controversy has emerged as a key issue that could affect Kim's political standing and his position within the party.

Critics warn that if the prime minister's statements diverge from the president's actual position, it could cause confusion within the party and erode public trust.

Kang said the senior presidential secretary's stance was that the timing and method of a merger are for the party to decide, and that the president did not hold a position on it. This adds a new point to the intraparty dispute over the merger.

As a result, Kang found himself in an awkward position, unable to say either that he wrote it or that his aides did, and ended up remaining silent.

Remarks that were brief at first have gradually taken on more specifics, raising doubts about their accuracy. Critics say this pattern could erode the credibility of his statements.

Critics say such a statement undermines respect for the party's democratic process and results, and reflects an arrogant attitude that only one person can claim legitimacy. It is seen as pressure on rival candidates and as an infringement on the choices of party members.

A panelist said Kim's remark sounded like 'coercion backed by the president's will' and criticized it as an undesirable stance in an election.

The remark is widely seen as exceeding the bounds of what candidates should say in an intraparty primary, adding to the controversy.

He initially raised the alliance and fueled the controversy, but later spoke about it separately, omitting the alliance, critics note. This is seen as an inconsistent stance that could be an attempt to evade political responsibility.

Excessive marketing centered on one figure can keep the candidate from showing his own competence, and if political difficulties arise later, the responsibility is likely to be shifted onto the president, they said. The approach may work in the short term, but could become a burden on the party and the president over the long run.

Panelists said Park initially judged that his own support was overwhelmingly high and expected this framing to work, but as more setbacks came, the limits of the strategy became clear. Critics argued the approach deepened intraparty division and could fatigue voters.

Panelists stressed that Shincheonji, as citizens, have the right to pay taxes and join a party. They compared this to other groups, such as the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, joining parties to make their voices heard.

The problem, however, arises when Shincheonji goes beyond simply joining and colludes with party leadership or particular factions to systematically influence party operations. Because Shincheonji is not itself a criminal organization, it is difficult to unilaterally target individual members' party membership, the analysis holds.

This view suggests that the democratic principles and fairness of religious groups' political activity must be considered together. Individuals' free political participation should be guaranteed, while organized interference with improper intentions should be guarded against.

Panelists said the phrase resembled how a Japanese prime minister handles past wrongs, and stressed that if he were truly sorry, he should say directly, 'I apologize once again, even now.' They said Kim, right after apologizing, moved on to promoting his own achievements, as if he had been forgiven.

This is seen as a reflection of an effort to strengthen his present political standing rather than genuine reflection on past wrongs. Real apology, critics stressed, must show acknowledgment of past conduct and a commitment to change now.

Panelists assessed that Kim often used the word 'apologized' but never gave the impression of deeply regretting his conduct.

They said that during hours when he should have been handling state affairs, he toured the country under the banner of publicizing government work, and that, as the Telegram exchanges show, he got involved in the merger process. They also said that after the local elections, when the president was abroad on a state visit and the party leader was not visiting, he went around to local council winners' workshops, effectively campaigning.

This has been framed as using the public office of prime minister for private political activity, raising suspicions of neglect of state affairs and abuse of authority.

Criticism that he focused on building his own political base rather than doing the duties of prime minister could fuel questions about his integrity and fairness.

They explained that this internal power struggle appeared negative to the public and led to the drop in approval.

They noted that the public dislikes the blame game and power struggles within politics most, and criticized the party for inviting a verdict on the administration by admitting defeat on its own.

The point suggests that the internal interpretation of the election result and how the party responded had a decisive effect on the president's approval. The analysis holds that failing to say it had won, and exposing internal conflict, deepened public distrust.