Demands to Verify Han Dong-hoon's Remarks, Judge Ji Gwi-yeon to Face Trial, Yangpyeong Landfill Controversy

The United States has requested the South Korean government to deploy troops to the Strait of Hormuz, but this has not been officially confirmed, and the government stated it is currently under review. If deployment is confirmed, it is likely to involve non-combat forces, but even this raises concerns about potential casualties and the appropriateness of the deployment itself.

Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon conveyed the government's dilemma, stating, "From the government's perspective, it's a very difficult situation. It's only at the stage of 'we will consider it.' It's definitely not confirmed."

However, reporter Kwon Ji-yeon criticized this, stating, "To define this as a cartel based on past progressive party or social movement connections and attack it in this way is actually an inference." She argued it is merely a political inference based on the individual's acquaintances.

Rep. Yong Hye-in is deeply contemplating whether to accept the ministerial position. Concerns arise that giving up her parliamentary seat could lead to the Basic Income Party becoming an extra-parliamentary party, while some suggest that declining the ministerial post could gain her political leverage.

PD Lee Doo-seok remarked, "If she had said, 'I regretfully decline the ministerial position this time to carry out this mission and protect my party,' she would have gained satisfaction." He suggested she could have gained greater political advantage by declining. Concerns were also raised that this personnel controversy could escalate into a political dispute, harming both the ruling and opposition parties.

This is a legal response to Rep. Kim's description of Rep. Lee as 'Woman Hitler.' Rep. Lee appeared at the Yeongdeungpo Police Station on the 6th for questioning.

Along with this, controversy continues regarding a discussion forum that allegedly disparaged the May 18th Democratic Uprising. Rep. Lee's side claims the forum was for academic purposes, but civic groups criticize it as an attempt to undermine the spirit of 5.18 and exploit legal loopholes. It is pointed out that this issue could escalate beyond a simple defamation charge to one of 5.18 historical distortion. Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon reported, "Rep. Lee Jin-sook of the People Power Party, it's unpleasant to say, has actually sued Democratic Party of Korea leader Kim Min-seok for defamation, because he called her 'Woman Hitler.'"

Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon quoted Rep. Han Dong-hoon, saying, "Rep. Han Dong-hoon said this about Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won: 'He received a request from a sister from a room salon to ask the Minister of Food and Drug Safety to approve a new drug that even rats die from if they eat it, and it actually happened.'" Criticism was also raised regarding whether a lawmaker's act of delivering a petition itself was appropriate as a public official.

It also remains unconfirmed whether Rep. Kim Seung-won was aware of the company's illegal activities or the drug's problems beforehand.

Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon pointed out, "It's a separate issue that needs to be proven whether Kim Seung-won knew there were problems with the data or other issues and solicited approval for a dangerous drug, or whether the approval happened after Kim Seung-won contacted them." She stressed that it is difficult to conclude illegality based solely on the fact of petition delivery and approval. Further evidence and investigation are needed to clarify this issue.

The report raised suspicions that the investment occurred around the time of clinical trial approval, fueling further controversy surrounding candidate Kim Seung-won.

Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon explained the TV Chosun report, stating, "A TV Chosun report from yesterday, the 6th, said that the CEO of Genesell, a professor named Kang, also invested 600 million won in convertible bonds with Mr. Yang around the time of clinical trial approval."

This claim suggests that there may be a background to the media company's reporting, and that it may contain an intention beyond simply conveying facts.

This is interpreted as the prosecution acknowledging the charge itself but deciding not to bring it to trial due to a lack of concrete evidence or other circumstances. This decision still leaves room for controversy, with various interpretations emerging from within and outside the legal community.

Suspicions were also raised regarding the acquisition path of undisclosed congratulatory speech materials mentioned by Rep. Han Dong-hoon and the sharing of information.

The host emphasized, "You can ask Han Dong-hoon the same questions: why he can unilaterally declare this case a successful lobby, and what direct evidence supports that conclusion." He stressed that not only candidate Kim Seung-won but also Rep. Han Dong-hoon himself should be subjected to the same verification for his statements.

However, the CIO's investigation revealed the actual drinking party amount was 4.09 million won, and the party lasted for 4 to 5 hours.

The host questioned the reliability of the Supreme Court's investigation, stating, "It was much larger than what the Supreme Court revealed in its own investigation: 4.09 million won." With objective evidence such as taxi call records directly contradicting the Supreme Court's explanation, the inadequacy of the initial investigation is being highlighted.

This raises suspicion that the number of people was adjusted to circumvent the 1 million won threshold under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. Repeated high-value drinking party receptions pose serious problems for the ethics of judges and the credibility of the judiciary.

It was revealed that one of the lawyers who attended Judge Ji Gwi-yeon's drinking party in 2023 also handled the appellate defense for a case heard by Judge Ji Gwi-yeon's court in 2013, overturning the first-instance ruling and winning the case. The host explained, "2013 is before 2023, 10 years ago. One of the lawyers who attended the CIO's drinking party participated as a lawyer in a case handled by Judge Ji Gwi-yeon's court."

The Supreme Court applied a 'recent 10 years' standard and excluded this case from disciplinary action, but this has raised suspicions of arbitrary interpretation. It is pointed out that even a 10-year-old case can influence current interests, requiring thorough review of the application of judicial ethics rules.

Furthermore, suspicions of political bias have been raised due to her involvement in the decision to cancel former President Yoon Suk-yeol's arrest warrant. The host mentioned her past rulings, stating, "This person was the presiding judge in the sedition trial. She also decided on the cancellation of former President Yoon Suk-yeol's arrest warrant."

These actions, combined with suspicions of planned investigations by the prosecution, have led to severe criticism of her moral failings as a judge. With concerns that the judiciary itself is failing to apply strict standards, public trust in the judiciary is at risk of significant erosion.

Residents claim the extension decision was made hastily and have protested in front of the county office. Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon described the situation, saying, "Today, in Yangpyeong County, there's a waste landfill that was set to expire in 30 years next year, and they had agreed with residents until then, but they handled the extension very hastily, didn't they?"

As protests escalated, the county office deployed police forces to restrict residents' access, showing a hardline response. Residents are criticizing the county's unilateral administration and lack of communication, demanding the withdrawal of the extension.

This is criticized as an infringement on residents' right to know and participate.

Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon conveyed Yangpyeong County's explanation, stating, "Yangpyeong County says this: 'We're building a park golf course, but for convenience, we obtained permission as a waste treatment facility.'"

However, residents are protesting, claiming this is a trick to buy time to bury more waste. They question the effectiveness of the park plan under a waste treatment facility permit and worry that it will only exacerbate environmental pollution in reality.

Governor Jeon Jin-sun claimed to have held 11 discussions with the resident support consultative body regarding the 30-year extension of the waste landfill. However, residents questioned the representativeness of the consultative body's members, arguing that genuine resident consent was not achieved. Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon highlighted the communication problem, asking, "Did you explain the 30-year extension to residents? Did you properly explain it and get their consent?"

Many point out that the opinions of residents actually affected were not sufficiently reflected. Conflicts of interest among local residents and the governor's unilateral communication style are analyzed as further exacerbating this controversy.

Village chief Park Ji-hyun emphasized the qualifications of resident representatives, stating, "Resident representatives must be residents living within a 2km radius. This is because the impact on someone living further away is less, and representing that perspective is different from representing someone directly affected by harm."

In reality, the committee consisted of an old group with no legal basis, and compensation payments were also distributed opaquely, with over 30% concentrated in specific villages. Such an undemocratic structure and operation undermine the committee's legitimacy and are a major cause of residents' distrust. Residents are strongly demanding the reconstitution of the committee according to legal requirements and the establishment of transparent compensation distribution principles.

The governor's attitude further angered residents. His avoidance of dialogue by characterizing the background of residents' opposition is criticized as a lack of genuine willingness to communicate. Residents are raising their voices, demanding that the governor go beyond perfunctory communication and demonstrate a real willingness to listen and solve problems.

Reporter Kwon Ji-yeon conveyed the residents' position, saying, "It's not 'don't do it,' but 'please do it legally.' And communicate with us, explain it properly, and let us understand so it can be done legally. Properly conduct an environmental impact assessment and accurately determine where the affected areas are."

This is a demand for a sufficient explanation and consent process through resident participation before the extension decision, and for a proper environmental impact assessment to objectively determine the affected areas. Residents are urging the county not to push decisions unilaterally but to resolve issues in a fair and reasonable manner.

Such an attitude from the governor, in which he dismisses residents' legitimate claims and environmental protection demands as having specific backgrounds or being instigated, could sever communication with residents and exacerbate conflict. Further questions from reporters are needed to clarify the governor's stance.