Kim Yong-beom, Kim Seung-won Suspicions; Yong Hye-in Controversy

Representative Jang Dong-hyeok strongly demanded that former Policy Chief Kim Yong-beom take responsibility for the 54 trillion won loss from single-stock leveraged ETF investments and appear as a witness at the parliamentary audit. Representative Jang suggested that Kim might have resigned just before the regular session to avoid the audit, asserting that he must appear as a general witness to reveal all the truth. He further emphasized that if a parliamentary investigation and special prosecutor begin, Kim Yong-beom will need to directly clarify all the facts of the incident.

Suspicions of a conflict of interest also arose, given that Kim Yong-beom's son works at Mirae Asset. In this regard, there was a call for Kim to take responsibility for the related financial crisis and provide transparent explanations. Representative Jang stated that if these suspicions are not resolved, a thorough investigation through the parliamentary audit is necessary, and if needed, a special prosecutor should be introduced to uncover the truth.

Representative Jang Dong-hyeok said, "First, I don't know if he resigned right before the regular session to avoid appearing as an institutional witness for the parliamentary audit, but he must appear as a general witness and reveal the truth at the parliamentary audit. And if a parliamentary investigation and special prosecutor begin, Director Kim Yong-beom must directly reveal all the truth of the incident."

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook claimed to have a tip that Mirae Asset Chairman Park Hyeon-joo and former Policy Chief Kim Yong-beom had a drinking session at a hotel, raising suspicions of collusion between Mirae Asset and financial authorities. He pointed out that such a meeting could violate financial laws and the Act on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest.

Attorney Jeong said, "But coincidentally, there was a tip that Chairman Park Hyeon-joo and Director Kim Yong-beom had a friendly meeting and drinking party at a hotel," emphasizing that if this tip is true, it is a serious problem.

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook raised transparency issues regarding the operation of the 150 trillion won 'Future Growth Fund' and questioned Chairman Park Hyeon-joo's role as co-chairman of the fund's strategic committee. He pointed out the risk that this fund could be diverted for the president's personal use. He also claimed that Chairman Park Hyeon-joo is likely to be economically tied to a specific political regime, criticizing that if the ETF-related investigation is not properly conducted, it would be condoning government corruption.

Attorney Jeong said, "Park Hyeon-joo, in a way, is highly likely to be a fated economic partner with the Lee Jae-myung administration. If an investigation related to ETFs cannot be conducted despite such suspicions, it would be overlooking government corruption." He urged a thorough investigation.

Kim Seung-won, the nominee for Minister of Justice, is embroiled in suspicions of lobbying the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety ahead of his confirmation hearing. Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook revealed that information has emerged suggesting Kim received a request from a broker, Mr. Yang, related to a new COVID-19 drug and lobbied the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. He pointed out that this suspicion exposes Kim's urgency during the confirmation hearing process.

Attorney Jeong said, "What just came out today is the text message scandal involving Kim Seung-won, the nominee for Minister of Justice. Yes, he lobbied the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. It's about him receiving a request related to a new COVID-19 drug from broker Mr. Yang and then lobbying the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety with it." He argued that if this suspicion is true, it would be a serious problem for his qualification as Minister of Justice.

These suspicions are expected to be a major hurdle in the process of Kim Seung-won's appointment as Minister of Justice.

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook analyzed that former Minister Cho Kuk harbors resentment towards Chairman Lee Jae-myung after his pardon. He claimed that Cho took his pardon for granted due to his contribution to the presidential election but was dissatisfied with being dropped from the Pyeongtaek-eul constituency nomination in favor of Kim Yong-nam. This is also cited as one of the reasons Cho expressed dissatisfaction during the merger process with the Democratic Party.

Attorney Jeong added that a sense of rivalry towards Representative Kim Min-seok's emergence as a presidential contender also seems to have played a role. Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook said, "Cho Kuk's gratitude for the pardon is long gone. He thinks that the pardon was natural because he helped in the presidential election. However, I believe he resented being dropped from Pyeongtaek-eul for Kim Yong-nam."

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook referred to former Minister Cho Kuk's statement that if it goes to trial, the probability of a guilty verdict is very high, and raised the possibility that Cho Kuk instructed the 12 Cho Kuk Innovation Party lawmakers to unconditionally oppose the Democratic Party's 'Lee Jae-myung Public Charges Dismissal Bill'. This could be interpreted as Cho's intention to curb certain moves within the Democratic Party based on his dissatisfaction with Chairman Lee Jae-myung.

Attorney Jeong said, "His statement that if it goes to trial, the probability of a guilty verdict is very high, makes me wonder if he issued an order to the 12 Cho Kuk Innovation Party lawmakers to unconditionally oppose any bill related to Lee Jae-myung that the Democratic Party brings up. I also wonder if he gave such an order," implying the possibility of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party taking an independent stance on key Democratic Party issues.

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook strongly criticized Yong Hye-in's intention to maintain her parliamentary seat even after being nominated as a minister, stating that it violates the principle of separation of powers and reflects an attitude of clinging to vested interests. He pointed out that it is undesirable for an individual belonging to the executive branch to concurrently hold a legislative position. This can also be interpreted as an act of evading the obligation of proportional representation succession.

Furthermore, youth and women's organizations are also opposing Yong Hye-in's actions and raising issues regarding her moral verification. Attorney Jeong emphasized, "For someone in the executive branch to also maintain a parliamentary seat actually violates the principle of separation of powers. It means not letting go of vested interests, and by not letting go of these vested interests, it spoils the precedent of the National Assembly," pointing out that it damages the precedent for a member of the National Assembly.

This controversy is expected to be a significant issue in the process of Yong Hye-in's ministerial appointment.

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook raised controversy by pointing out the imbalance between Nominee Yong Hye-in's asset growth and tax payments. He claimed that her assets, which were 100 million won before being elected to the National Assembly, have now increased by 460 million won to 560 million won, but her actual property tax paid over five years is only about 1.2 million won.

Attorney Jeong said, "If you exclude property tax, it's calculated that she only paid about 240,000 won a year. Her assets were only 100 million won before becoming a lawmaker, but now they are 560 million won, an increase of 460 million won, but she only paid 240,000 won in taxes." He criticized that the amount of tax paid is remarkably low compared to the scale of asset increase.

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook questioned Yong Hye-in's national suitability due to her past 'Stay Still' Sewol ferry protest activities and her background from a specific political party. In particular, he criticized the possibility that she originated from an organization that denied the values of liberal democracy and advocated for communist revolution. Her past attempts to change the Labor Party's name and her defection process also raised further doubts.

Attorney Jeong said, "Isn't she from an organization that denies the values of liberal democracy and advocates for communist revolution? I have doubts as to whether she truly broke ties with the Labor Party." He argued that clear explanations are needed regarding whether Yong Hye-in has completely severed ties with her past ideologies.

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook mentioned that the Basic Income Party receives approximately 1.1 billion won in subsidies annually, plus additional funds, and raised suspicions that the usage of these funds is opaque. He questioned where this enormous subsidy is being spent, given the small number of party officials.

He specifically cited Yong Hye-in's low tax payments (240,000 won per year) as a basis, claiming that the Basic Income Party's use of subsidies might not be transparent. Attorney Jeong said, "Currently, the Basic Income Party receives about 1.1 billion won in support annually, plus additional costs. However, they don't have many staff or party officials. If the taxes paid were 240,000 won a year, where would those funds have been spent?"

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook raised suspicions that a specific underground organization protected a sexual harassment perpetrator and gaslighted the female victim. Furthermore, he claimed that this perpetrator received job assistance, enabling him to work and receive a salary at 'Korea Boardgames,' a company operated by Mr. Kim Ki-ro.

Attorney Jeong said, "That perpetrator, he was allowed to work and receive a salary at 'Korea Boardgames,' a company run by Mr. Kim Ki-ro," criticizing that such behavior demonstrates the immoral practice of covert organizations protecting perpetrators.

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook analyzed that Chairman Lee Jae-myung's nomination of Yong Hye-in might have two strategic intentions. First, in a situation where communication with former President Moon Jae-in's supporters is difficult, there might be an intention to directly communicate with the left-wing forces behind them. This could be interpreted as an attempt to expand his support base within the party and strengthen his leadership.

Second, even if Yong Hye-in is unsuccessful, the public would fully learn about the organizations behind the activist figures during this process. Attorney Jeong added that this could also be interpreted as a scenario to consolidate the extreme left-wing forces within the Democratic Party or to reveal their true nature to shift public opinion.

Attorney Jeong said, "From Chairman Lee Jae-myung's perspective, there might be two possible strategies in nominating Yong Hye-in. One could be that since I can't communicate with former President Moon Jae-in's supporters, I'll talk to the left-wing behind them. Even if that doesn't work out and Yong Hye-in fails, the public will learn in detail what organizations are behind those activist figures."

Attorney Jeong Gyeong-wook analyzed the reason for the prolonged delay in appointing the National Police Agency Commissioner, referring to the current situation where the third acting chief is in place. He claimed that Chairman Lee Jae-myung's side is first replacing 14 regional police chiefs to complete the lower-level appointments, and then selecting a National Police Agency Commissioner who will follow his directives.

Attorney Jeong said, "Now we have the third acting chief, right? So, this means they have already replaced 14 regional police chiefs, haven't they? They first establish the lower-level appointments like this, and then they are choosing a police chief who can follow their directives. That's how I see it." He interpreted this as an intention to control the entire police organization.