Busan Democratic Party's 'Group of Six' Nomination Rigging Exposed

It is claimed that they feigned acceptance to avoid backlash from regional committee chairs, then tried to overturn the results through the central party. Evidence also suggests an attempt to overturn the nomination results at the central party's supreme council level, facilitated by Assemblyman Moon Jong-bok.

The assemblyman's office refused to comment on the allegations and cut off communication. This contradicts the reporters' expectations for clarification or explanation regarding the suspicions.

He admitted to personal acquaintance with members of the Group of Six but drew a clear line, stating he was unrelated to any organized activities or behind-the-scenes manipulation. Chairman Lee Sang-ho stated he would take legal action against the spread of false information, attempting to block further allegations. NewsTamSa reported that it would work to prove whether Chairman Lee Sang-ho's explanation is unfounded.

While they claim to be unrelated to the Group of Six, they are considered to be well-versed in internal affairs. Furthermore, suspicions have arisen that there is an attempt to seize control of the Busan City Chapter by promoting new figures.

However, Chief Kim Byung-soo denied the fact, claiming it was "groundless." This contradicts the content of a KakaoTalk message released by the informant, amplifying doubts about the veracity of Lee Sang-ho's statement.

He argued that the secretariat was an undesirable department, but the reporter countered that the secretariat is at the core of power. In this process, the power distance among party officials and the practice of lining up were mentioned.

NewsTamSa reported that this lecture was intended to confirm who the real power brokers within the party were. However, a city chapter official denied the lecture ever took place. A text message for a full candidate meeting and a Facebook post about the lecture suggest its existence, contrasting with the city chapter's claim.

During this meeting, public opinion poll results were shared and election campaign methods were taught. Although there was no official list of instructors, allegations have been raised that an actual lecturer was present, raising questions about the party's opaque education system.

According to an informant, the lecture content was obvious and full of jokes, leading many candidates to be angry, calling it a waste of time. However, due to the internal atmosphere, with the strong influence of Lee Sang-ho and pro-Roh Moo-hyun figures, no one could object. It is said that although Jeong Gyeong-won, the office manager, was asked to finish quickly, it proceeded without refusal.

The transcript contains evidence of a conspiracy to target specific individuals, send out on-site inspections, and create justifications to exclude them from nomination. They appear to have discussed a meticulous plan to block opposition and shift the burden of proof. The method involved verifying party loyalty through interview questions and using that as a pretext for on-site inspections.

This was a tactic to prevent the target, Mr. Jeong, from preparing in advance. It also included a strategy to push through with an official party decision and later dismiss any backlash as a collective issue.

During the conspiracy discussion, strategies to avoid responsibility when opponents raised issues were debated. The plan was to intentionally escalate the matter to strengthen the opponents' burden of proof, and if problems were raised later, to claim, "At that time, there were valid reasons for it," thereby attempting to legitimize their actions. This is interpreted as evidence of an attempt to systematically conceal the truth.

The transcript includes discussions about the practical steps and reporting system for implementing the operation. Specific implementation plans, such as the method of receiving tip-offs and interview questions, were discussed, and options for anonymous submissions or using multiple names were suggested. Seo Tae-gyeong responded that he would prepare the discussed content for the next day's afternoon meeting, showing his willingness to proceed.

This suggests that the motive behind the nomination manipulation was to seize control of the region.

The informant stated that he began recording due to workplace harassment from Chief Administrator Kim Byung-soo. As the person in charge of the nomination tip-off center at the time, he explained that he recorded to prevent his involvement in the manipulation. The informant emphasized that he recorded to protect himself from further oppression or harm in situations where they were alone, and that not reporting or following instructions would have made him complicit in a crime. The informant filed a personal criminal complaint and reported the facts to the Election Commission.

He explained that the conversation was merely to comfort candidate Seo Tae-gyeong, and neither had the intention to meticulously plan and execute it. He also denied his possible involvement by claiming exclusion from the nomination review committee and his own recusal. Chief Kim described the situation at the time as him 'writing a novel'.

Despite discussions between the Busan City Chapter chief administrator and the opposing candidate on false reports to remove opponents, the central party organization bureau chief visited Busan and allegedly concluded the matter by merely drinking coffee and exchanging pleasantries. An organization bureau official repeatedly gave generic answers about fair handling, then stopped responding to calls, suggesting limitations in uncovering the truth.

On March 19, the informant confirmed Seo Tae-gyeong and Kim Byung-soo's conspiracy to intervene in nominations, and the next day, Seo Tae-gyeong promised to prepare for a meeting. Indeed, a false report was received at the tip-off center on March 20, and Chief Administrator Kim Byung-soo was put on standby on March 27. On April 5, preliminary candidate interviews based on the false report took place. During this process, allegations of a revolving-door appointment for the new chief administrator also surfaced.

Evidence emerged that Cha Sang-ho, identified as a key figure in the illicit line, had detailed knowledge of confidential disciplinary actions within the party. Allegations also arose that Chairman Byun Seong-hwan, upon realizing the transcript had been leaked, contacted the parties involved first to attempt a cover-up. This suggests a coordinated effort to block the leak channel of the recording.

The transcript mentions the removal of proportional representative candidates, with a statement, "I think Lee Jong-wook will also be gone." This can be interpreted as an illicit line's attempt to handle private interests through official party organizations. There was also a remark about mobilizing the central party's organization bureau to cancel the proportional representation itself.

This statement serves as evidence that bolsters the allegations of nomination intervention, showcasing his influence over the central party's organization bureau. It is interpreted as an attempt to undermine the party's fair system.

This can be seen as an attempt to obstruct fair competition and enforce the will of a specific faction.

NewsTamSa reporters plan to conduct additional investigations into the counterarguments related to Cha Sang-ho and the reasons why a tip-off to Secretary-General Jo Seung-rae did not lead to a resolution. They announced that they would provide an in-depth report on related content next Wednesday. This suggests that the nomination corruption allegations could involve key party figures.