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."

The People Power Party has criticized Rep. Yong Hye-in's ministerial nomination, labeling it a 'left-wing network' or 'left-wing cartel build-up.' Floor leader Jeong Jeom-sik and lawmaker Jang Dong-hyuk raised these claims, citing Rep. Yong's past progressive party and social movement connections.

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.

People Power Party lawmaker Lee Jin-sook has sued Democratic Party of Korea leader Kim Min-seok for defamation. 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.'"

Rep. Han Dong-hoon strongly criticized the inappropriateness of the petition delivery, claiming that Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won '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.' However, the host pointed out that clear verification is needed as to whether this should be viewed as a complaint resolution process or a quid pro quo solicitation.

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.

While Rep. Kim Seung-won's petition delivery itself has been confirmed as fact, a clear causal link has not yet been proven regarding whether it was an illegal quid pro quo solicitation and whether the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's approval was due to the petition delivery. 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.

On the 6th, TV Chosun reported that Professor Kang, CEO of Genesell, invested 600 million won in convertible bonds with Mr. Yang as a quid pro quo for lobbying through candidate Kim Seung-won. 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."

Regarding Chosun Ilbo's coverage of Rep. Kim Seung-won, a claim has emerged that it may be retaliatory, citing Rep. Kim's past active raising of issues concerning Chosun Ilbo's ABC circulation inflation. PD Lee Doo-seok explained the situation at the time, stating, "Previously, Rep. Kim Seung-won was the most active in raising issues concerning the problems with ABC and Chosun Ilbo's circulation inflation, wasn't he?"

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.

Regarding Rep. Kim Seung-won's case, the prosecution determined that there was a charge of promising a bribe for mediation, but ultimately decided on a suspended prosecution. PD Lee Doo-seok explained, "The prosecution also gave a suspended prosecution. The prosecution, in any case, judged that Kim Seung-won had a charge of promising a bribe for mediation."

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.

Regarding Rep. Han Dong-hoon's unilateral declaration of the Kim Seung-won candidate case as a 'successful lobby,' the host pointed out that one could question the basis for this and what direct evidence supports his conclusion. 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.

Controversy has arisen over the alleged drinking party reception of Judge Ji Gwi-yeon, with a significant discrepancy in the amounts found by the Supreme Court's internal investigation and the Corruption Investigation Office (CIO)'s probe. The Supreme Court identified the drinking party amount as 1.7 million won and deemed the disciplinary grounds insufficient as Judge Ji Gwi-yeon left early. 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.

It has been confirmed that Judge Ji Gwi-yeon, who received a drinking party reception worth 4.09 million won in 2023, also had a drinking party worth 4.16 million won in September 2024 at the same establishment, including the same lawyer, this time with five people. The host stated, "It was also confirmed that in September 2024, Judge Ji Gwi-yeon and the same lawyer, along with five people this time, drank alcohol at the same establishment again."

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.

Judge Ji Gwi-yeon caused controversy by employing a lenient sentencing logic that seemed to shield the defendant while imposing a life sentence in a sedition-related trial. 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.

Yangpyeong County's decision to extend the operation of a waste landfill, set to expire next year, by 30 years without resident consent, has met with strong opposition from residents. 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.

Yangpyeong County's announcement of an expansion of the waste landfill area from the existing 100,000 square meters to 150,000 square meters has sparked public outrage among residents. Village chief Park Ji-hyun pointed out, "They announced an expansion from 100,000 square meters to 150,000 square meters. That expansion announcement should follow the sequence of agreeing to a re-extension first, and then expanding it themselves."

Residents criticize this expansion announcement as having been made without any prior notice or consent process, viewing it as an administrative trick to make the landfill re-extension a fait accompli and even expand it further. This is criticized as an infringement on residents' right to know and participate.

Yangpyeong County stated that it plans to develop the waste landfill into a park golf course and, for convenience, obtained a permit as a waste treatment facility. 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.

It was revealed that the Yangpyeong County Resident Support Committee operated for 30 years without adhering to legal requirements, such as including resident representatives and environmental experts. 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.

Yangpyeong County Governor Jeon Jin-sun, despite consistently emphasizing 'communication,' refused to directly meet and speak with residents protesting the 30-year extension of the waste landfill. When asked by a reporter about his willingness to talk with residents, Governor Jeon Jin-sun replied, "It would not be appropriate. There is a background to why the demonstration is being held, and there are other risks," thus avoiding on-site communication.

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.

Yangpyeong County residents are not unconditionally opposing the landfill extension itself, but rather demanding proper procedures and transparent communication in the extension process. 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.

Yangpyeong County Governor Jeon Jin-sun made remarks that seemed to dismiss residents' pure concerns as having impure intentions, characterizing the reasons for their opposition to the landfill extension protest as having a 'specific background.' PD Lee Doo-seok conveyed the governor's perception, stating, "He said that those who oppose it have various 'backgrounds.'"

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.