Kim Seung-won Hearing, 'Guideline Controversy'

Anchor Heo Hyun-jun said, “Seo Young-kyo's strange tears were captured. She was seen turning her head and wiping her eyes with her hand.”

The video and screenshots quickly spread across various media outlets and online communities, becoming a hot topic. This scene, exclusively captured by a PenNMike reporter's quick现场 action, sparked various interpretations in conjunction with the hearing's atmosphere.

Rep. Joo Jin-woo categorized this as unauthorized photography and surveillance, threatening strong legal action. This incident, combined with the fact that the nominee only provided answers to ruling party lawmakers, escalated further controversy.

Anchor Park Sang-ki recounted the situation, saying, “Rep. Park Kyun-taek said, 'Your face is scarier,' which I can understand. But then he said, 'ugly face,' he said, 'a weapon.'”

Rep. Kim Tae-kyu's side strongly protested this, raising the possibility of insult charges. The hearing seemed to escalate into an argument between lawmakers rather than focusing on nominee verification.

This document contained specific instructions on how the nominee should respond to the hearing. This led to criticism that the hearing itself was proceeding according to a pre-arranged script.

Some even suggested that Rep. Seo Young-kyo's tears were part of a scenario orchestrated according to these guidelines. Doubts about the sincerity and fairness of the hearing grew.

This remark was interpreted as an attempt to justify a lack of specialized knowledge by using the humanities/science divide. It eventually led to criticism even from ruling party lawmakers.

During the hearing, a question arose about the specific circumstances of a selfie taken with Yang Soo-jin, but nominee Kim Seung-won replied that he could not remember the location and time of the photo. Kim Seung-won evaded the question, saying, “I don't know exactly where. What year was it? Take it away. Yes. Take it away.”

The nominee added that as a politician, he takes photos with many people, making it difficult to distinguish. However, this did not resolve the allegations related to his relationship with the person in the photo.

Nominee Kim Seung-won argued, “Ten cases of mild symptoms such as diarrhea and abdominal pain were reported in 109 pizza recipients. It is unfair to conclude it's poison.”

However, the anchor interpreted these symptoms as side effects and potential risks of the medication. Concerns about the safety verification of clinical trials arose.

The two hospitals where Genencell clinical trials were conducted were disclosed as Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital and Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital. Rep. Kwak Kyu-taek raised the argument that Rep. Shin Hyun-young urged clinical approval, asking, “How could a first-term lawmaker, not even a member of the Health and Welfare Committee, urge the KFDA commissioner to quickly approve clinical trials?”

This became a basis for raising suspicions of Rep. Shin Hyun-young's involvement with the Genencell case and other Democratic Party lawmakers. Allegations grew that a specific lawmaker unduly intervened in clinical trial approval.

Such suspicions raised questions about the independence and fairness of the KFDA. Calls for a thorough investigation into the possibility of political intervention emerged.

This content states that after failing a fire inspection, during the process of re-constructing flame-retardant facilities, a Suwon City Hall team leader extended the fire inspection period for a specific institution and provided various conveniences.

This raised suspicions of unfair preferential treatment in the operation of a social cooperative. Allegations of preferential treatment occurring in an organization claiming public interest became a target of criticism.

The possibility of dereliction of duty and abuse of power by Suwon City Hall public officials was also raised. Calls for a thorough investigation to uncover the truth grew.

However, the anchors refuted this, stating that the law does not apply to Rep. Kim, who is a member of the National Assembly. This led to a debate over the scope and application of the crime of disclosing suspect facts.

It was revealed that nominee Kim Seung-won received a summary order for a 700,000 won fine for drunk driving on July 4, 2008. The anchor reported, “He received a summary order for a 700,000 won fine for drunk driving on July 4, 2008, but when asked to submit the summary order document, he said he could not submit it due to concerns about infringing on his privacy.”

The nominee refused to submit the requested documents, citing privacy concerns. Suspicions were also raised as to whether this incident occurred while he was serving as a judge.

Yang Soo-jin and Kang Se-chan appeared at the Seoul Western District Court in connection with the clinical trial trial. The anchor pointed out, “Yang Soo-jin, who called Kim Seung-won 'oppa' for over 22 years, should go to the hearing. But the Democratic Party did not select her, nor Kang Se, so those key figures are at the Seoul District Court in Mapo.”

However, their failure to be selected as witnesses for the National Assembly hearing drew criticism. It was pointed out that uncovering the truth would be difficult without key witnesses at the hearing.

Arguments were made that the National Assembly should summon them to the hearing to clarify the facts. Calls for the National Assembly to work towards satisfying the public's right to know grew.

Amid concerns over US tariffs raising the need for dispatching troops to the Strait of Hormuz, opposition parties showed signs of opposing the dispatch. Anchor Park Sang-kyu said, “The Hormuz dispatch issue is a burning issue right now. If Lee Jae-myung handles this poorly, the Korean economy will collapse. According to reports today, the Hormuz dispatch proposal was removed from the agenda. When I heard this, I thought, 'They're crazy.'”

Reports emerged that the dispatch proposal was excluded from the agenda of the NSC Standing Committee, which was to be held tomorrow.

Some argued that the government removed the proposal from the agenda due to concerns about declining approval ratings related to the dispatch. This was criticized as a crucial matter directly related to national security and the economy being sidelined due to political considerations.

Anchor Park Sang-kyu criticized the government for avoiding an agenda item that should have been discussed, stating, “The Hormuz dispatch proposal must be discussed and passed.” It was pointed out that excluding it from the agenda without in-depth discussion was irresponsible.

Rep. Kim Young-hwan said, “I thought for sure the media would call it a 'toothless hearing'. There are no witnesses, no documents.”

Nevertheless, he praised the opposition lawmakers for fighting well under difficult conditions and categorized nominee Kim Seung-won as a target for judicial processing. While pointing out the limitations of the hearing, he emphasized the efforts of the opposition party.

Rep. Kim Young-hwan criticized Kim Seung-won's confirmation hearing for suddenly turning into a melodrama. Rep. Kim Young-hwan pointed out, “It suddenly turned into a melodrama. Kim Seung-won and Seo Young-kyo cried, and Kim Min-jeon and Kim Tae-kyu laughed.”

Furthermore, he defined the KFDA's incompetence as 'Hamster Gate,' claiming it was a case of national disorder where the KFDA collapsed with a single phone call. Rep. Kim Young-hwan strongly criticized, “The most serious thing is that the KFDA has collapsed. Isn't it an incident where a national institution responsible for food safety in our country collapsed with a single phone call? I think it's a case of national disorder. 109 people were injected with a hamster's poison.”

This statement emphasized the seriousness of the allegation that drugs were administered to 109 clinical trial participants. Calls for the KFDA's responsible stance and a thorough investigation grew.

This led to suspicions that the KFDA tried to cover up and conceal the reported information. It was pointed out that this rendered the purpose and function of public interest reporting meaningless.

Ultimately, the incident surfaced when the whistleblower, feeling that things couldn't go on, re-filed a complaint with the Supreme Prosecutors' Office. The ACRC's and KFDA's initial inadequate responses were highlighted as the core of the problem.

These circumstances severely damaged the credibility of the public interest reporting system. Concerns grew that the complacent responses of responsible agencies could jeopardize public life and safety.

Calls for an independent investigation to uncover the truth grew louder.

Nominee Kim Seung-won said, “It is not a family cooperative. We did it so that my son can continue to care for those children even when they are 20 or 30 years old. It was absolutely not for profit or money-making.”

He mentioned the severe condition of the children and requested an end to allegations that hurt his family and caregivers. This was seen by some as an attempt to quell suspicions by appealing to personal emotions.

Rep. Kim Tae-kyu asked, “So what did you say? Party dissolution is the most important fundamental of party activity freedom... Briefly, if you didn't say that, then briefly, according to the court's decision... How did you say you would act as Minister of Justice?”

This was a question aimed at eliciting a response that he would handle matters according to law and principle as Minister of Justice.

Party dissolution and impeachment are important legal procedures for the state, thus a clear stance from the Minister of Justice was requested.

These questions were interpreted as an attempt to confirm the nominee's legal convictions and commitment to fair job performance. Political neutrality and adherence to the rule of law were important issues.

Regarding questions about allegations of manipulation in Genencell animal experiments, nominee Kim Seung-won evaded answering and said, 'I don't know because I'm a humanities major.' Rep. Kim Min-jeon pointed out, “It was submitted to the KFDA that animal experiments were manipulated. Isn't this already in court rulings?” But nominee Kim Seung-won replied, “Rep. I am a humanities major. I cannot know about the performance related to that crime, even after reading the ruling.”

Such a response was criticized as an attitude of avoiding responsibility by blaming a lack of specialized knowledge on being a 'humanities major.' Some even pointed out that this was used like a cheat code.

In particular, given the nominee's past career as a judge who made rulings in specialized fields, this 'humanities major' remark was criticized as contradicting his past experience.

This expanded into an issue where the nominee's responsibility-avoiding remark clashed with his past professional expertise. Doubts about his sincere answering attitude at the hearing grew.

The National Assembly's request for a list of clinical trial participants was rejected, citing personal and sensitive information. Anchor Kim Hye-hoon explained the situation, saying, “Because lawmakers can request data. But this was rejected because it contains personal information and sensitive information.”

This was interpreted as a situation warning of potential risks similar to the humidifier disinfectant case. It was pointed out that the refusal to disclose the list was making truth-finding difficult.

The problem of restricted access to information, despite it being a matter directly related to public health and safety, was revealed.

Calls for transparent information disclosure to prevent potential risks grew. Opinions also emerged on the need for efforts to form a national consensus.

Anchor Kim Hye-hoon pointed out, “The server crashed at 5:50 PM. So what should have happened first? The Ministry of Education should have quickly called and said, 'Don't upload the final competition rate yet. It's not done.'”

Confusion arose when the final competition rate was released first, followed by an extension of the application period. This caused controversy over reverse discrimination for students who had already applied normally.

The education authorities' complacent crisis response capability and inadequate system management came under fire.

Criticism was raised that fair opportunities for test-takers were not guaranteed. The education authorities' responsible stance and urgent measures to prevent recurrence are needed.

The host pointed out, “After Lee Jae-myung's business report last December, he has continuously been preoccupied with that and focused on biased textbook production, etc. Isn't it that he neglects his essential duties like reviewing, verifying, post-measures, and crisis management?”

It was pointed out that the Ministry of Education neglected its essential duties of crisis management and post-measures. This raised concerns that the Minister's task bias could lead to overall inadequacies in education administration.

Even his history of criticizing prosecutors during the Cho Kuk investigation was mentioned, increasing doubts about the Minister's political neutrality. Calls for serious consideration of his role as the head of education emerged.

This number was achieved at an unprecedented speed for a local government petition, interpreted as an indicator of strong dissatisfaction among Gyeonggi residents.

However, Gyeonggi Province issued a formal reply and then immediately closed and deleted the petition, drawing criticism. This was pointed out as an act that undermined the fundamental meaning of the petition and ignored the voices of the residents.

Gyeonggi Province's response further amplified residents' dissatisfaction. It was criticized for disregarding democratic communication procedures and cited as an example of the absence of transparent and accountable administration.