Defense Ministry Dispatches Hormuz Survey Team

South Korea's official position regarding potential troop deployment to the Strait of Hormuz emphasizes 'cooperation' with allies like France, but carefully avoids making any concrete commitments. The government has repeatedly stated that 'nothing has been decided,' maintaining a cautious approach.

Blue House officials clarified that discussing deployment at an upcoming summit would be 'too far ahead,' indicating a desire to defer any definitive statements on the matter.

French President Macron extended an invitation for South Korea to join a multinational mission in the Strait of Hormuz, framing the initiative as 'peaceful.' France suggested that its cooperation with South Korea is contingent on South Korea's consent.

This explicit invitation from France puts additional pressure on Seoul to clarify its position, despite its current neutral stance.

Officials, however, quickly clarified that this team's purpose is limited to 'information gathering' and is part of a broader 'review process,' not an immediate step towards deployment.

This distinction aims to manage public perception, suggesting that a site inspection is separate from any official decision on troop deployment. The government seeks to emphasize that the team's presence is purely for fact-finding.

Representative Song Young-gil cited Constitutional Article 5, which prohibits participation in such conflicts.

Critics further highlighted the absence of any UN resolution or NATO involvement, questioning the legal and ethical basis for South Korean participation in the current conflict.

The current conflict involving the United States, Iran, and Israel is considered by some to be difficult to deny as an aggressive war. Panelists noted the unprecedented nature of lawmakers openly labeling a US-involved conflict as an act of aggression in South Korea's constitutional history.

During the Trump administration, the Strait of Hormuz was unilaterally declared 'US territory,' a move that raises questions under international law, which defines threats to sovereignty and territory as acts of aggression. Given these legal ambiguities and the lack of a clear just cause, the government is urged to declare any deployment impossible.

This document contains internal strategic details and is not considered relevant to the court's evidence.

The fact that this specific document was leaked suggests a deliberate breach of internal protocol, raising serious questions about the source and intent behind its disclosure.

Kwak Su-san highlighted this discrepancy.

Han Dong-hoon allegedly ignored these internal documents and claimed external pressure, using the timing of the disclosure to frame a particular narrative.

Information released goes beyond standard 'case files,' which typically contain evidence relevant to a case. Kim Gwang-min pointed out that if internal documents unrelated to case processing were leaked, it suggests an unauthorized, total data dump from within the prosecution.

This raises concerns that Han Dong-hoon might be utilizing 'sexy' but non-evidential internal data without a full understanding of the judicial process, potentially to influence public opinion.

Han Dong-hoon made suggestive remarks implying a romantic link between Kim Seung-won and a lobbyist, specifically asking if there were photos of them alone at the lobbyist's home. Kwak Su-san highlighted this line of questioning.

This narrative appears to be a political smear tactic, used regardless of factual evidence. Journalists questioned the relevance of these claims, deeming them an invasion of privacy.

The government is demanding a thorough investigation into the leakage of non-public investigation materials, particularly those informing Han Dong-hoon's recent claims. Kim Min-seok stated that Han's assertions suggest cooperation with insiders within the prosecution; otherwise, they are mere fabrications.

Officials emphasize that the unauthorized release of non-public investigative records is a grave illegal matter. They advocate for a full verification of the facts and legal action against all identified leakers, viewing this as a serious breach of protocol and trust.

Only 34.9% of respondents deemed the reshuffle appropriate.

Conversely, a majority of 59% viewed the reshuffle as inappropriate, indicating a notable lack of public confidence in the government's personnel changes.

This specific policy ranked highest among disapproved policies.

This dissatisfaction follows broader public concerns, with 40.1% expressing unhappiness over the government's overall lack of effective policy implementation.

The DP argues that this plan effectively maintains existing prosecution power under the guise of reform.

Kim Min-seok officially acknowledged concerns regarding the 'second prosecutor's office' criticism, which suggests that structural changes are merely superficial and do not lead to genuine reform. He stressed that a parliamentary review is necessary to ensure that the prosecution is not preserving its vested interests through organizational restructuring, adhering to the principle of 'irreversible prosecutorial reform.'

Retaining a large organizational structure within the Prosecution Service, even if its investigative scope is initially reduced, allows for easy expansion via executive orders, as witnessed under Han Dong-hoon. Kim Kwang-min noted that if the organization itself is not downsized, its investigative powers can be arbitrarily increased.

The risk remains that without a reduction in organizational size alongside investigative scope, the existing structure can be repurposed to bypass legislative checks and balances. This maintains the potential for unchecked power, despite reforms aimed at limiting it.

Kwak Soo-san highlighted this alarming increase.

Elementary school students reported the highest incidence, with 5.7% experiencing violence. The definition of school violence in the survey is broad, encompassing various forms of abuse, including verbal harassment and cyberbullying.

However, these pre-arranged waivers do not exempt perpetrators from criminal charges.

Legal experts clarify that physical injury resulting from fights constitutes 'assault' or 'bodily harm,' which are not exempt from prosecution, even if the parties reach a private settlement. These agreements, despite legal counsel, hold no legal weight in preventing a criminal investigation.