Kim Min-seok's 'Female Hitler' Remark Controversy Spreads

The controversy began when lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu referred to Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok as 'Mr. Kim Min-seok' in the National Assembly. Lawmaker Park Kyun-taek immediately raised his voice, strongly protesting, "Let's maintain some decorum." Lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu countered by pointing out that the Democratic Party also referred to Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae as 'Mr. Cho Hee-dae.'

Lawmaker Park Kyun-taek emphasized that Kim Tae-gyu was his 'junior,' mentioning his own age and legislative term. He stated, "Aren't you junior to everything I've done? How many terms and how much seniority do I have here to argue about?" asserting his authority as an elder and senior. In response, lawmaker Kim Tae-gyu pointed out that Park Kyun-taek was also a first-term lawmaker and argued that prioritizing age and seniority was proof of a logical disadvantage.

When Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae nominated Senior Judge Son Bong-gi as a Supreme Court Justice candidate, the Democratic Party immediately objected and strongly demanded the Chief Justice's resignation. Lawmaker Park Sang-kyu stated, "He must immediately resign from the Chief Justice position. Only his resignation is the sole way to atone for the collapsed judicial justice and before the public," criticizing the Chief Justice. During this process, the Democratic Party escalated its criticism by calling Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae 'the Chief Justice of the ages' (희대의 대법원장, a pun also meaning 'unprecedented' or 'monstrous').

Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok proposed the abolition of discriminatory comprehensive real estate taxes and the expansion of tax reduction reasons for non-resident single-home owners regarding real estate policy. Lawmaker Park Sang-kyu mentioned, "Let's not discriminate with the comprehensive real estate tax. Or let's broadly recognize reasons for tax reductions for non-resident single-home owners." However, these proposals faced criticism for lacking realism due to the potential for excessive administrative costs and failed cases in countries like the UK.

Lawmaker Kim Min-seok caused controversy by using the term 'legalistic Chief Justice' to refer to Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. In response, Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae criticized Kim Min-seok's remark as political mockery, emphasizing that he is not a politician. The statement, "So, what did Kim Min-seok, whom he came to serve, say? He called me a 'legalistic Chief Justice.' Does that make sense?" is an extension of this criticism.

Criticism arose regarding the Democratic Party's labeling of the Chief Justice's exercise of Supreme Court Justice nomination power as 'atonement.' It was argued that this 'atonement' concept is a religious term and merely a political attack. The rhetorical question, "Is that something for which he should be called 'the Chief Justice of the ages' and have to atone?" points out the inappropriateness of this framing. Additionally, it was also claimed that the responsibility for the failed meeting with the Chief Justice lies with Lee Jae-myung's side.

An interpretation emerged that conducting face-to-face interviews for Supreme Court Justice nominations is merely a practice that began during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, and is not legally illegal or unconstitutional. The statement, "They say this breaking of a 'practice' by the administrator is some kind of sin, but it's only a practice created during the Roh Moo-hyun era," presented a new perspective on this legal practice.

Controversy arose after it was revealed that Sung Ki-young, the Senior Secretary for Public Relations and Communication at the Blue House, appeared on 'OhmyNews TV.' Some criticized the appearance of a high-ranking Blue House official on a YouTube channel with a specific political leaning as inappropriate. The statement, "So the Senior Secretary for Public Relations goes on a left-leaning YouTube channel and speaks," reflects a critical view of the Presidential Office's approach to YouTube.

Criticism of inappropriate language arose when lawmaker Park Sung-joon used the term 'collaborator' towards Noh Kyung-pil, Chief of the Court Administration Office. The term 'collaborator' carries serious meaning from a specific historical context, and its use in the current situation was deemed inappropriate as it did not fit the actual circumstances. The statement, "Park Sung-joon called Noh Kyung-pil, Chief of the Court Administration Office, a collaborator. Where is the collaboration? The word 'collaboration' is not something to be used carelessly in such situations," represents this criticism.

Lawmaker Lee Jin-sook indicated the possibility of filing a defamation lawsuit against lawmaker Kim Min-seok for referring to her as 'female Hitler.' A legal expert analyzed that "she was called 'female Hitler,' and to conclude, there is a very high possibility of defamation being established." A past precedent of a politician being fined 2 million won for defamation was cited, suggesting that Kim Min-seok's remarks could lead to legal trouble.

It was argued that the restoration of prosecutorial investigative powers is necessary to address shortcomings in missing person investigations. Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu stated, "I believe that the full stripping of prosecutorial investigative powers must be restored to monitor this," pointing out the possibility of dereliction of duty and fabrication of official documents that could occur during police investigations. Concerns were also raised about the trustworthiness of internal police investigations and blind spots in investigations similar to those depicted in Filipino-themed dramas.

Lawmaker Noh Woong-rae's acquittal highlights the court's emphasis on the strictness of the search warrant issuance process. The admissibility of files from Lee Jung-geun's mobile phone as evidence became a key issue. The court stated that even for the same incident, if the defendants and actions differ, "Because the defendants are different and the actions are slightly different, even if it came from Lee Jung-geun's phone, separate warrants must be obtained. This is the court's current position," demanding separate warrant issuance. This means that even if prosecutors view it as the same incident, the court requires individual procedural legitimacy.

It was pointed out that under the current criminal law structure, a single piece of illegally obtained evidence can lead to an acquittal for the entire case. Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu explained, "If one out of ten pieces of evidence is illegally obtained, aren't there nine other pieces of evidence? If just one piece of the nine is flawed, it leads to an acquittal—that's the structure, unfortunately." He cited a case where an intoxicated driving murder resulted in an acquittal due to the lack of a handover document. This illustrates the dilemma of current law where a single procedural violation, despite abundant evidence, can lead to an acquittal.

Lawmaker Han Dong-hoon urged the disclosure of past recordings to refute claims of political oppression and confirm facts. Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu stated, "It seems entirely reasonable to ask for the disclosure of such audio files for political defense or political attack," reminding listeners of the audio files Han Dong-hoon mentioned in the National Assembly when he was Minister of Justice. This is interpreted as both a criticism of the Democratic Party's arrogant attitude and part of a political dispute.

Controversy arose over leader Lee Jae-myung blaming the prosecution for lawmaker Noh Woong-rae's disqualification from nomination. Lawyer Kang Dae-gyu pointed out, "He himself, when he was party leader, set the criteria for disqualification, and then he blamed the prosecution's indictment for not giving the nomination," highlighting the contradiction of Lee Jae-myung blaming the prosecution's indictment despite making the decision himself as party leader. This was criticized as an attempt to evade political responsibility.