Criticism of a Toothless Hearing Without Witnesses

In particular, suspicions of preferential treatment in subsidies for a private cooperative run by his spouse suggest the possibility of deliberate exclusion in the institution selection process.

They pointed out this is an excessive exclusion of witnesses compared to the roughly 10 witnesses adopted for Minister Cho Kuk's hearing and 4-5 for Minister Han Dong-hoon's. Doubts are raised that a thorough verification is difficult with only the nominee's explanations.

These types of cases are generally not preferred by lawyers, raising questions about the nominee's motivation for taking them, despite being a former judge. It is pointed out that questioning on this matter is necessary at the hearing.

The problem highlighted is that despite the initial public announcement seeking 400 participants, only about 100 applied, and the safety verification of the clinical trial, which actually involved 93 people, was not properly conducted. Critics argue that the nominee could have fully anticipated that people would be administered the drug once Genencell received clinical trial approval as a result of his resolution of the civil complaint, effectively trading public health for 5 million won. The need to clarify not only political and moral responsibility but also legal responsibility is raised.

The nominee hired Judge Jung's son as a legislative assistant, and Judge Jung previously dismissed the warrant for Genencell CEO Kang. This suggests that their relationship might be a close collusion rather than a casual acquaintance. Suspicions are also raised that the nominee was aware of economic benefits to Genencell in the form of investment.

Amid escalating suspicions regarding nominee Kim Seung-won's involvement in Genencell's clinical trials, a standalone report by JoongAng Ilbo confirmed 29 Q&A documents. These documents include details of human experimentation on patients, and the number of clinical trial subjects, previously reported as 93, has been revised to 109. Evidence suggests that the nominee attempted to logically defend against issues like suspected toxicity, as adverse symptoms such as diarrhea and abdominal pain were confirmed.

Despite 14 requests for supplementary information, Genencell received clinical approval in just two weeks, which critics suggest would have been impossible without the nominee's involvement. The nominee's intervention with the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety is interpreted as pressure, not merely a work instruction, making his involvement in the clinical trial approval process a key issue. This matter has escalated into a serious problem that goes beyond political and moral responsibility, with legal liability also being discussed.

This is analyzed as an attempt to intimidate the opposition and use democratic institutions as a tool to attack opposing factions. Alongside criticisms that he lacks the qualifications to be Minister of Justice, it is also pointed out that this is a strategy to obscure issues and evade allegations during the hearing.

Kim Seung-won's remarks are criticized as tantamount to a declaration that he will undermine the political neutrality required of a Minister of Justice. It is pointed out that he effectively stated he would serve as a political tool for the ruling party. In particular, concerns are raised that he would actively pursue the President's indictment cancellation, which is cited as one of the main reasons for opposing Kim Seung-won's appointment. This is analyzed as a strategy by the nominee to avoid withdrawal of his nomination by refusing calls to resign.

Some interpret this as a display of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, or as a contingency plan for future risks facing the Basic Income Party.

However, the resignation announcement was intertwined with various issues beyond just the concurrent position problem, including real estate and other allegations, and criticisms of family-run party operations. It is pointed out that she is creating a misunderstanding that the resignation announcement was solely due to the failure to allow her proportional representation succession.

She made no apologies or expressions of regret regarding her own mistakes or areas of suspicion. Her criticism of the People Power Party as 'unreasonable demands' and her attacks on the Democratic Party drew dissatisfaction, especially when compared to the intensity of her defense of nominee Kim Seung-won.

At her resignation press conference, she presented messages that conflicted with the statements of opposition lawmakers. Some speculate that Assemblyman Kim Min-seok may have promised her the next proportional representation seat, leading to conjectures that her resignation was not merely a personal decision but related to a political alliance.

This decision was based on the judgment that more in-depth discussion was needed. The Ethics Committee is reportedly set to confirm procedural requirements and provide additional opportunities for explanation to the lawmakers in question.

The People Power Party Ethics Committee consists of one chairperson and five members, four of whom are legal professionals. They often participate in disciplinary reviews for public officials and police officers, and are known to apply very strict criteria in factual determination. The disciplined individual's attitude of remorse and thorough explanation are important, and past requests to recuse from disciplinary committees have all been rejected.