Representative Lee Jae-myung's Party Control Tested

The fact that Kim Yong, endorsed by Lee Jae-myung, ranked 6th in the party member vote, placing last, supports this analysis. It's also noteworthy that the candidates who ranked 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in public opinion polls are classified as 'Jeong Cheong-rae's faction.' Furthermore, there's an assessment that pro-Roh Moo-hyun and pro-Moon Jae-in factions are openly showing signs of rebellion against the Lee Jae-myung system.

The interlocutor stated, "From Lee Jae-myung's perspective, he has committed too many crimes. He is a defendant. What should he do to proceed with the trial? One option is to eliminate the trial itself, and the second is for him to serve as president again to prevent the trial from proceeding." This suggests he might eliminate the trial or seek a suspension of prosecution through presidential re-election.

In connection with this, there are rumors that a former lawyer in the Daejang-dong case might be nominated as Minister of Justice, which could be interpreted as part of Lee's strategy to address his judicial risks. Additionally, suspicions have been raised that he is trying to exert pressure on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to intervene in the formation of the court, sparking controversy.

The interlocutor stated, "It's about dividing roles. They fear the sternness of public sentiment, the backlash. If Kim Min-seok continues like this, he might self-nominate for the 2028 election, but he won't be elected." This remark is seen as a desperate measure, acknowledging the backlash against real estate policy.

There's also an analysis that Representative Kim Min-seok's remarks consider the public sentiment in his constituency, Yeongdeungpo. This can also be interpreted as a strategic move by the party to appease public sentiment ahead of future elections.

The interlocutor criticized, "The government's tax reform proposal was presented as a starting point to help gather public opinion, not a policy decided unilaterally. This is what they said. That a government announcement isn't finalized and can change at any time. This effectively admits their incompetence."

Critics point out that explaining a government announcement as unfinalized and subject to change at any time lowers public trust in policy decisions and amounts to an admission of a lack of policymaking capability.

It is reported that approximately 100 opinions have been submitted regarding the legislative amendment to the comprehensive real estate tax (Jongbu tax). The interlocutor stated, "It is known that about 100 opinions have been submitted regarding the legislative amendment to the Jongbu tax. Most of them are strongly opposing and rejecting the proposal, and such opinions are widely spreading."

In particular, fierce opposition from those without homes, coupled with the difficulties in securing monthly and yearly rentals, suggests that public dissatisfaction with the Jongbu tax amendment is escalating.

Concerns have also been raised that tax policies focused on suppressing demand lack policy consistency, and strengthening taxation on non-resident single homeowners could lead to a decrease in available monthly and yearly rental properties.

It has been argued that the government's real estate measures could negatively impact the monthly/yearly rental market. There are an estimated 4 million or more non-resident single homeowners nationwide, with over 2 million residing in the Seoul metropolitan area alone. The interlocutor stated, "If 10% of those, 200,000 households, have their owners move in, then suddenly 200,000 monthly/yearly rental units disappear. That's why prices go up even more."

If just 10% of these owners withdraw their properties for personal residence, 200,000 monthly/yearly rental units would suddenly vanish from the market, potentially accelerating the rental crisis. This leads to criticism that measures for young people and those without homes lack effectiveness.

Blaming the previous administration and failures in real estate and stock policies during the first year of his tenure were cited as major reasons for the drop in approval ratings. It was also observed that if the approval rating enters the 30% range, a rebound would be very difficult. This analysis reflects a critical view of the current government's policy direction and communication style.

A skeptical view was raised that merely replacing real estate policy officials would not fundamentally solve the problem. The interlocutor criticized, "What's the point of replacing them? All government policies are being thrown out through Lee Jae-myung's social media, overnight or in the early morning. If Lee Jae-myung doesn't change, changing other people won't have any fundamentally meaningful effect."

Arguing that the root cause of the policy lies with Representative Lee Jae-myung himself, it was emphasized that a change in Lee's policy stance is more important than changing officials. Additionally, there was a call for the government to stop excessive intervention in the market.

Consequently, criticism has been raised that the feasibility of some arguments for 'supply at all costs' is low.

Therefore, it was emphasized that an arrest through the warrant issuance procedure was necessary.

During the investigation of a missing person's case, the short retention period of public CCTV footage became an issue. Lawyer Kim Ki-young stated, "The retention period for public CCTV is about 30 days. So, in this case, the missing person was reported on May 15th, but all CCTV footage was deleted before June 19th."

This means that the CCTV footage was deleted before 30 days had passed since the missing person report, making it difficult to secure evidence. Along with this, criticism continued regarding the police's decision to conclude the investigation, even though the possibility of utilizing other digital evidence, such as mobile phone base station tracking, was raised. This is leading to calls for strengthening investigative agencies' capabilities in securing and utilizing evidence in the digital age.

Lawyer Kim Ki-young asserted, "Victimless crimes—drugs, gambling, drunk driving, violations of political funding laws, public election laws, politicians' crimes—these are victimless crimes. If the police simply conclude these, no one can look into them. I believe all these issues comprehensively require Geomsuwanbak Wonbok."

It was pointed out that in the case of crimes without clear victims, such as drug offenses, gambling, drunk driving, violations of political funding laws, and public election laws, if the police conclude the investigation, there is virtually no function to check it. Therefore, the argument for restoring the prosecution's investigative oversight function through a comprehensive reversal of investigative power adjustments is gaining traction.

Some raise concerns that serious crimes could be concealed, similar to the case in the Philippines, and argue that the prosecution's oversight function over police investigations should be restored. This is proposed as a way to prevent potential problems arising after investigative power independence and to ensure fairness and transparency in investigations.

The legal basis for Representative Roh Woong-rae's not-guilty verdicts in the first and second trials was cited as the illegality of the evidence collection procedure. Lawyer Kang Dae-kyu explained, "The basis for the acquittal was that the evidence was collected illegally."

In particular, the principle of warrants for separate seized items appears to have been applied, meaning that evidence obtained without proper procedure was not recognized as valid by the court.

Lawyer Kang Dae-kyu stated, "I dislike the current arrogance of the Democratic Party so much, so I hope Representative Han Dong-hoon recalls and fully discloses the audio files and transcripts." He raised the need for former Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon to recall the facts and confirm the details.

This led to the argument that the audio files and transcripts should be fully disclosed to criticize the current stance of the Democratic Party. This demand for disclosure goes beyond simple fact-finding and has political motives, expected to further intensify political debate.