Kim Seung-won, nominee for Minister of Justice, expressed his intention to reform the Ministry of Justice, which has been centered on the prosecution, at his confirmation hearing.
Kim stated that during recent forensic analysis, keywords including the name of Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung and numerous national assembly members and politicians were found in search terms.
This could be linked to suspicions that the Presidential Office was briefed on and involved in specific cases, and Kim suggested his own case might not be an exception.
The nominee emphasized that since the national agenda is a promise to the public, it will be carried out without fail.
He expressed his commitment to promoting the de-prosecutorization of the Ministry of Justice by actively gathering opinions from the National Assembly and the public, improving the prosecution-centric organizational culture, and allowing the ministry to focus on its inherent duties.
This promise is part of an effort to establish the Ministry of Justice's status as an independent administrative department, rather than a superior agency to the prosecution.
Representative Kim Yong-min criticized instances where the Prosecutor General stated he was 'not a subordinate' of the Minister of Justice, demanding a clear definition of the command and supervision relationship between the Minister of Justice and the Head of the Public Prosecution Service (Prosecutor General). Nominee Kim Seung-won replied that he would keep this in mind.
The nominee expressed his commitment to clarifying legal relationships and fulfilling the Ministry of Justice's responsibilities and roles to ensure the successful establishment of the criminal justice system, which is transitioning after 70 years.
Representative Park expressed concern that such activities could not be considered normal legislative work.
Representative Park characterized former Minister Han's behavior as an extension of political prosecution, criticizing him strongly while mentioning various issues such as alleged leaks of investigation materials and complaint cases.
This led to questions about the public activities and political neutrality of a former Minister of Justice.
He explained that it was merely one phone call and one or two text messages exchanged.
In response to a fellow lawmaker's request for factual verification, Nominee Kim reiterated that he did not act beyond his authority.
He emphasized the urgency of developing treatments and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, expressing regret that he had too much faith in the possibility of the treatment being supplied at a low cost.
Representative Kim expressed the limitations of verification due to the lack of access to materials.
The nominee himself also confirmed that he had not secured specific indictment plans, suggesting the difficulty of the hearing due to insufficient materials.
Therefore, we cannot verify it now, and I want to secure those materials to ask if there are any problems, but there is no way to secure them.
He expressed his trust in the procedures of the MFDS and expert meetings.
Nominee Kim promised to work on victim relief and fact-finding for stock manipulation if he assumes the position of Minister of Justice.
This exchange highlighted controversies over the transparency and safety of the clinical trial process for the treatment at the time.
He emphasized his innocence, citing the fact that no judicial proceedings have been initiated against him to date.
This appears to be a logic that leverages the strictness of the current administration's discipline to prove his integrity.
The nominee once again requested understanding that there were no illegal cases that the lawmakers were concerned about.
These remarks are interpreted as part of an active defense against the allegations surrounding him.
The chairman explained that with the consent of the party concerned, they could appear as a witness or reference witness even on the same day.
The chairman conveyed to Secretary Park Hyung-soo that it would be good if he appeared as a witness, and to Secretary Kim Eui-kyeom that it would be good if he appeared as a reference witness, indicating that opinions were being coordinated.
This was the first time the party concerned publicly disclosed discussions initiated by the chairman regarding witness selection and attendance during the operation of the hearing.
In response, nominee Kim Seung-won replied that he would respect the wishes of his wife and son.
Representative Park praised the family's activities as commendable work for the socially vulnerable and confirmed the nominee's intentions.
He demanded that upon taking office as Minister of Justice, the nominee meticulously review and selectively process materials that should not be in the prosecutor's cabinet, and conduct a thorough audit to identify those responsible.
Representative Park argued that it should be investigated whether prosecutorial data was used for lawyer's business or political purposes, raising the necessity for a strong audit regarding related suspicions.
This statement raises fundamental questions about the prosecution's data management and political neutrality, providing important implications for the future role of the Ministry of Justice.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee refuted the claim that he had never granted a motion for a point of order, stating that it is granted when there is a problem or a situation requiring a point of order.
Conflict intensified when opposition party members took issue with the chairman unilaterally revealing that he had spoken to a witness during the hearing without consulting the secretaries, leading to a temporary suspension and reorganization of the hearing.
Representative Park Hyung-soo expressed his dissatisfaction with such criticism, saying, "What's the point of this?"
A heated argument also broke out between Representative Park Hyung-soo and Representative Kim Nam-hee, with criticisms of immaturity being exchanged, making the hearing difficult to proceed.
Representative Park Hyung-soo pointed out that today's hearing was not being conducted in a manner befitting the Judiciary Committee, and that many citizens would be disappointed and concerned. He requested that profanity and personal attacks be refrained from in the hearing room.
He also raised an issue regarding nominee Kim Seung-won's aides filming and recording the committee members. The chairman urged the aides to focus on their primary duty of recording for the members and called for prevention of recurrence.
This section reveals the differing perceptions among committee members regarding the fairness and dignity of the hearing's operation.
However, Representative Joo Jin-woo strongly protested, arguing that Representative Kim Nam-hee's demand infringed upon his right to question.
Representative Joo Jin-woo claimed that the facts he presented were correct and that the facts Representative Kim Nam-hee was referring to were incorrect, exchanging heated words.
During this process, allegations and rebuttals regarding requests involving the nominee's spouse were exchanged, escalating the dispute between the two sides.
Representative Joo Jin-woo strongly criticized the opposing lawmaker for attempting to 'fact-check' his questions, saying, "Does it make sense to fact-check an opposing lawmaker's questions like this?" He asserted that the facts he presented were correct and refuted Representative Kim Nam-hee's remarks.
During this process, the 'Kim Hyun-ji Secretary Directive Theory' was mentioned, escalating the debate, and the contents of the recording related to the nominee's spouse were brought up again, heightening the conflict between the ruling and opposition party members over the right to question and the right to defense.
He emphasized the difference between the two time points, asserting that there were no procedural issues.
He explained that all procedures were legally carried out through supplementation during the review period, and that regulations were followed without delay or incident.
Representative Park raised questions about the legitimacy of the presidential power to withdraw prosecutions, expressing concern that Kim's past actions could undermine the neutrality of the Minister of Justice.
These remarks amplified doubts about Kim's political background and independence as Minister of Justice.
The criticism is that the nominee's past active involvement in specific political activities could be an obstacle to performing his duties as minister.
He expressed his conviction, stating, "I don't think it's necessary to do it artificially like that."
Kim stated that he would express such opinions during the legislative process in the National Assembly, clearly stating his views regarding the exercise of the presidential veto.
This statement clearly shows the nominee's stance on the independence of the prosecution and the role of the special prosecutor.
He mentioned the intensity of the simultaneous political investigations at the time.
Kim explained that he became aware of the reality of search and seizure during the investigation of his acquaintances' call records, suggesting that the atmosphere of the investigation at the time was very coercive.
This statement reflects a critical view of prosecutorial investigation practices and political neutrality.
He explained that as a result of this investigation, Mr. Kang, who was accused of influence peddling, was acquitted, and Mr. Yang was found not guilty.
Nominee Kim Seung-won himself received a deferred indictment, emphasizing that his innocence regarding the main charges was revealed after a long period of investigation.
Representative Kim Dong-a confirmed that there was no stock manipulation regarding Sejong Medical itself, but rather embezzlement, breach of trust, and other stock manipulation cases related to the major shareholder were ongoing. In response, nominee Kim Seung-won refuted the claim that Genencell's COVID-19 treatment was 'poison.'
Nominee Kim cited the content of the MFDS Commissioner's decision not to indict, emphasizing that the treatment underwent normal clinical approval procedures.
This explanation appears to clarify the facts regarding the Sejong Medical and Genencell allegations and to address controversies over the treatment's safety.
He repeatedly asserted that clinical approval was granted through normal MFDS procedures, refuting the allegations.
Answers come from the transcript, with the exact spot cited.
Want the next article from 펜앤마이크TV?
When 펜앤마이크TV publishes, we'll write it up like the one you just read and email it to you.
펜앤마이크TV published 67 in the last 7 days.
