Han Dong-hoon Shifts 'Stock Manipulation 18.3 Billion Won' Frame

Minister of Justice nominee Han Dong-hoon changed his confirmation hearing offensive by altering his Facebook message content in just one day. He put the 'stock manipulation worth 18.3 billion won' allegations front and center instead of the existing 'oppa' frame. This is interpreted as a strategy to defend against allegations of manipulating recordings related to himself and to seize the initiative in the confirmation hearing issues.

Nominee Han continuously raised suspicions about the relationship between Rep. Kim Seung-won and Yang Su-jin. In response, nominee Han retorted, 'If you don't want to fight together, don't interfere,' revealing internal party conflict.

There is a clear intention to escalate this to the scale of the 'Deutsch Motors stock manipulation' case.

First, there must be a lobbying request from Rep. Kim Seung-won. Second, approval must be granted due to that request. Third, the stock price must move as a result of the approval. Finally, someone must profit from that stock price, and that profit must be connected to Rep. Kim Seung-won. If even one of these links is broken, the charge of aiding stock manipulation is difficult to establish.

Newstamsa secured various data to verify the allegations of stock manipulation against Rep. Kim Seung-won. We analyzed 751 pages of prosecutor's recordings, daily market price information from the Korea Exchange for approximately six months from 2021 to 2022, and 18 public disclosures from Sejong Medical uploaded to the Financial Supervisory Service.

It was confirmed that Ms. Yang attempted to sponsor nominee Kim Seung-won 5 million won, but the money was not actually delivered. The transfer failed due to exceeding the sponsorship limit. Although the recording mentioned the sponsorship as successful, it was revealed during the trial that the money did not go through, and currently, neither side disputes this fact.

However, the first instance court stated that it was difficult to conclude that the investment was a bribe for lobbying, citing that Professor Kang and related individuals had been involved in business and discussed investment prior to the incident.

This indicates that a significant amount of time passed between the contract signing and the text message.

It is alleged that Ms. Yang used the text message sent by nominee Kim to the MFDS commissioner as information related to stocks. Our investigation found no direct communication or contact between nominee Kim Seung-won and Professor Kang during this process.

Since stock trading itself was impossible at the time due to a stock split, it is difficult to see the text message as having a direct impact on the stock price.

On the morning of the MFDS approval, the stock price of the relevant company surged. Subsequently, as syndicate holdings were sold, the stock price experienced fluctuations, closing at its daily limit. The recording contains conversations among acquaintances about the timing of sales, raising suspicions of a connection to stock manipulation.

To date, it has not been confirmed that the text message directly affected the stock price. Therefore, the issue of special favors in the MFDS approval process remains a key point of contention.

It was confirmed that there was no separate directive for expedited processing from MFDS Commissioner Kim Gang-lip. Prosecutors determined that it was difficult to consider Genecell to have received special favors, citing that requests for supplementary materials continued until just before approval. No MFDS officials were indicted in relation to this.

Nominee Kim Seung-won was aware that the company would profit through MFDS approval. Also, according to the recording, in a call about selling old shares, he asked if he should inquire with the commissioner, and four days later, he indeed made contact. At the confirmation hearing, nominee Kim must clearly explain the background of transmitting the text message screenshot and whether he intervened in the internal review process of the MFDS.

The signing of the contract, payment, and completion of the transaction all occurred within a single day on October 19. This is where the claim that a refund was necessary if approval failed contradicts the contract's contents. The transaction was already completed one week before MFDS approval.