Kim Seung-won Hearing: Issues and Debates

These allegations are considered to have no value in responding to, as the fact that the evidence was contaminated is already known. This is analyzed as showing the isolated situation of former Minister Han Dong-hoon, whose position has narrowed due to issues with the leakage of his investigation materials.

Attempts were made to shift public opinion by re-using old materials like the Saecheonnyeon NHK incident, but this was criticized as proof that the Kim Seung-won Gate investigation was not progressing properly. It is interpreted that the investigative direction deviating from its core and moving to other individuals indicates a lack of investigative items.

The sponsorship account is an official account reported to the National Election Commission, and there was even a case where no deposit was actually made. The People Power Party accused this normal contact as quid pro quo lobbying, but the nominee's side emphasized that there was no evidence whatsoever specifying a quid pro quo relationship. It is known that the nominee sent a text message saying 'thank you' because no money was deposited.

The decision to suspend prosecution in the Kim Seung-won nominee case is controversial because there are no precedents of prosecution for merely promising to hand over money. Despite Kang Se-chan being indicted on charges such as bribery arrangement and acceptance, the fact that no money actually changed hands demonstrates the difficulty of prosecution. A large-scale investigation involving 12 prosecutors and lasting 25 months took place, but it is suggested that they may have ultimately given up due to the difficulty of proving the criminal charges. There is a legal limitation where if the person who promised to give money is indicted but the person who was supposed to receive it is acquitted, the prosecution itself cannot be established.

The People Power Party continued its offensive against nominee Kim Seung-won, raising suspicions of improper solicitations, stock manipulation, and even involvement in remittances to North Korea. However, the nominee's side countered that investigative agencies had already thoroughly investigated and confirmed no charges. Reporter Kim Tae-gyu pointed out that proper evidence should be presented to resolve these suspicions, but no testimony was properly adopted, and a disposition of non-indictment was issued. This shows the sharp disagreement between the ruling and opposition parties regarding the establishment of criminal elements and the quid pro quo relationship.

Nominee Kim stated that Genencell is not a listed company and that he had no relationship with Sejong Medical at the time of the contract signing on October 19, 2021. The People Power Party tried to connect this to suspicions of stock manipulation, but the nominee's side refuted that the facts were different. This issue is where attempts to prove a link between stock manipulation suspicions and the nominee clash with the nominee's claims to prove their irrelevance.

In particular, the argument was made that the timing of Sejong Medical's investment in Genencell must be clearly confirmed as October 2021. Reporter Park Dae-yong confirmed that the request was made to Representative Kim Seung-won in October, following the clinical trial plan approval application in September 2021 and a security directive issued on September 30. This suggests that the opposition party's attack power may be limited depending on their familiarity with the investigation materials.

This was considered given the need for national focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he mentioned that he recognized the fairness controversy over conveying a difficult request to a National Assembly member through an acquaintance, and ultimately felt regret.

Reporter Park Dae-yong explained that Yonsei University's occupational therapy department has the highest cutoff line, and occupational therapy is a separate division of treatment from physical therapy. He emphasized that his son's activities were based on professionalism, citing that performing occupational therapy in a social cooperative provides additional points for professorship appointments, among others.

As a result of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's response, it was determined that risk disclosure had not occurred, leading to criticism from reporter Kang Jin-gu, asking, 'Are the citizens of South Korea being used as subjects for human experiments?' This once again highlights procedural issues in clinical trials and the importance of ensuring safety.

Reporter Kang Jin-gu emphasized that administering high-concentration drugs to animals in the early stages of new drug development is to confirm the range within which it is harmless to the human body. He pointed out that promoting the death of mice during animal testing as 'administering poison to humans' is a misunderstanding, and stated that while data omission in the Genencell case would be problematic, the experiment itself is a normal process.

The recording contains evidence that the spouse directly contacted the team leader to request convenience, and the team leader provided favoritism, such as delaying the period, saying, 'Our agency must do it.' It was claimed that this would have been impossible if not for the spouse of a National Assembly member, further escalating the favoritism allegations.

Reporter Joo Jin-woo raised questions by comparing this asset growth rate to Samsung Electronics. Furthermore, allegations were raised that the nominee's son's salary was excessively high compared to youths with similar experience, leading to claims of favoritism in Suwon City's permit and review processes.

He emphasized that the center's operation and salaries are decided through parent meetings, and that the owners of the cooperative are also parents of children with disabilities. The nominee argued for the legitimacy of his son's salary by stating his high work intensity and heavy workload, refuting the favoritism allegations.

Although it was argued that the evidence was insufficient for grounds to disqualify a Minister of Justice, the parties involved dismissed the suspicions, explaining that the expression was customary.

He explained that the 2023 designation process had no competing centers, allowing designation if only regulations were met. He also emphasized that legal procedures such as supplementing fire safety facilities were followed during the designation process, and that there was no schedule delay or favoritism whatsoever, dismissing the allegations.

In past broadcasts, he mentioned the need for the minister to exercise the authority to withdraw prosecution, but after his nomination, he claimed at a doorstepping event that exercising this authority was unnecessary. The nominee explained that his past remarks as a National Assembly member were assertions of public concern about fabricated indictments, and his remarks as a ministerial nominee were made with his impending public office in mind. This is interpreted as a change in stance due to the difference between political claims during his time as a National Assembly member and his public service values as a ministerial nominee.

On this day, a separate document titled 'Investigation Commencement Report' was prepared, and suspicions were raised regarding the formation of an investigation team centered around Yoon Suk-yeol's faction, including Prosecutor General Lee Jin-dong. Evidence also emerged that key figures in the investigation team related to this case moved to Kim & Chang after retirement, intensifying questions about the intentional coincidence between the investigation commencement time and the document's creation.

It was revealed that prosecutors requested a trial postponement, citing that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Criminal Department had not yet approved the sentencing opinion. Reporter Kang Jin-gu pointed out the situation where public prosecutors requested a trial postponement, raising questions about the reason for the delay in the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's approval. This is observed as the case being pushed down in the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's priority list, raising issues regarding delays in the internal prosecutorial sentencing procedure and the absence of Supreme Prosecutors' Office guidelines.

Furthermore, criticism was raised that the basement was operated as a play facility without a change of use, and fire safety and evacuation routes were not secured. The nominee's side stated that corrective actions, such as immediately deleting the word 'school' from the internet, had been completed. Regarding the underground facility, he explained that it was a utilization of a flooded space, refuting the allegations of legal violations.

He reserved judgment on the recognition of self-defense rights under international law and emphasized the value of Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (Denial of aggressive war). The nominee stated that he would review the history of South Korea's deployments, such as to East Timor, Iraq, and Yemen, and consider the best course of action for constitutional spirit and national interest rather than the form of deployment.

Nominee Kim Seung-won ignited controversy by requesting confirmation of the existence of an indictment plan or case processing plan that former Minister Han Dong-hoon allegedly leaked. He raised questions about the reason for the change from a projected 8-month prison sentence to a suspended prosecution and stated that he requested the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to actively disclose these documents when requested by National Assembly members to verify former Minister Han Dong-hoon's claims. This demands a thorough investigation into the alleged leakage of prosecutorial data.

This is criticized as potentially being used as a tool for abuse of investigative powers and human rights violations. Nominee Kim Seung-won stated that if appointed as Minister of Justice, he would have a mission to prevent illegally held national data from being used for political purposes, and vowed a full audit and investigation into the alleged illegal leakage.