Ambassador Philip Goldberg Presents Credentials to Lee Jae-myung; Yoo Si-choon Corporate Card Acquittal Fuels Concerns Over Fallout of "Prosecution Reform"

The presentation of credentials is customarily carried out with several ambassadors at the same time. It is a formal procedure marking the start of their official activities, and in the past multiple ambassadors have often presented their credentials together.

In Ambassador Philip Goldberg's case, however, he reportedly presented his credentials alone to President Lee Jae-myung, which drew attention.

The appointment process of an ambassador begins with receiving the appointment letter from their home country. The ambassador then enters Korea and submits a copy of the credentials to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, holding practical discussions with the foreign minister.

After completing these steps, the ambassador finally submits the original credentials to the president, and the president's acceptance formally completes the appointment.

This process stands out for having been carried out alone, in contrast to the usual credential presentation practice.

Ambassador Philip Goldberg's role is assessed as very important for future Korea-US relations. However, in the session where President Lee accepted the credentials, the two only exchanged general remarks about efforts to promote friendship between the two countries.

Concrete and sensitive matters such as trade, economy, and security were not addressed, and critics said there was a lack of in-depth discussion on resolving pending issues.

The role of an ambassador is to convey the difficulties of the sending country to their home government and work to resolve them. Attention is therefore focused on what steps Ambassador Goldberg will take on security and economic issues.

How the Lee government responds to the ambassador's activities is expected to be an important variable in future Korea-US relations.

The report was cited by major Korean media, sparking controversy.

As the Lee government faced criticism that it was politically exploiting its cooperation with the business community, voices emerged calling for a discussion about how the relationship between government and companies should be defined.

Articles from the foreign press report cited by the Nikkei Shimbun were carried by several domestic outlets, but afterward those articles began disappearing. Questions were raised about why articles disappeared from outlets including Maeil Business Newspaper.

Attempts to locate the deleted articles failed, and accessing the original foreign report required membership registration, making it difficult to reach. This situation amplified suspicions about the reasons behind the deletions.

Past presidents have had commemorative watches, but a watch bearing the face of a specific politician is unusual.

After it became known that someone was openly wearing a Lee Jae-myung watch, critics said it expressed excessive loyalty to a particular politician.

It was pointed out that a Woori Bank PR head wearing a Lee Jae-myung face watch while meeting lawmakers could be read as an inappropriate political message. Some argued that such conduct, just before the parliamentary audit, could come across to People Power Party lawmakers as a declaration of war.

Some also claimed that because a bank is a private company, it has no reason to bow to the National Assembly. However, private companies in Korea are supervised by the relevant government agencies. Banks are supervised by the Financial Supervisory Service and the Financial Services Commission, and these bodies are subject to parliamentary audits.

As a result, conduct by a PR head that ignores time, place, and occasion (TPO) is hard to avoid criticism as inappropriate.

The analysis is that the act may have aimed to win a favorable reaction from the Lee government and the Democratic Party.

There are also suggestions the aim was to get the Financial Supervisory Service, the Financial Services Commission, and other bodies under the Lee government to view Woori Bank favorably, thereby avoiding unnecessary scrutiny from the National Assembly. Criticism is growing because the act appears to carry a political purpose.

The incident was criticized as an act that hindered free newsgathering.

The case is likely to be recorded as an example of friction with the press during the Democratic Party's convention, and it has again raised controversy over the press's watchdog function.

Large banks rarely file lawsuits of such size against smaller press outlets.

This raises the possibility that a particular official's judgment influenced the decision to sue, deepening questions about the lawsuit's background and motives.

With the regular National Assembly session and budget committee deliberations approaching, worries have been raised that the press may fail to adequately criticize and check the government.

A free press that can criticize and hold power accountable is essential to the public's right to know and to the healthy development of democracy. Yet recent events have fueled anxiety that this function could be curtailed.

Critics warn that if the press is trapped in the government's "gag" (ipteulmak), monitoring and raising problems with government policy will become difficult, ultimately harming the public.

On the charge of personal use of EBS chairman Yoo Si-choon's corporate card, the court acquitted him, but also said some business promotion expenses were questionable and that suspicion of personal use remained. However, it reasoned that the circumstances of buying groceries and flowers near his home or far away did not allow a conclusion of personal use.

The ruling drew criticism that the prosecution's burden of proof was excessive. The question was raised whether, if someone used a corporate card at a side-dish shop near their home, the prosecution must prove that the side dishes were used for the defendant or their family.

If the "personal use cannot be conclusively established" reasoning from Yoo's case is applied, the prosecution could be required to prove that fruit and other items Kim bought were used for family or acquaintances rather than Gyeonggi Provincial Government staff.

Such an application of the law could make Kim's trial more difficult, and the prosecution's burden of proof may grow heavier.

Both cases highlight the ambiguity in separating official from personal use of corporate cards and the difficulty of proving personal use, and they may serve as important precedents for similar future rulings.

Commissioner Lee faced criticism merely for buying bread with a corporate card and distributing it to staff, whereas Yoo was acquitted of a similar charge of personal corporate card use.

These contrasting outcomes drew criticism that the application of the law differs depending on political affiliation.

As critics pointed out that the Democratic Party treats certain individuals leniently and others harshly, concerns arose that this could deepen distrust in judicial fairness.

Because police lack a dedicated security investigation power, once they issue a non-referral decision the investigation ends. This has raised concerns that fairness may be compromised in cases involving special relationships such as siblings or acquaintances.

In some cases, police may decline to refer or delay investigations until the complainant tires out and settles. This could lead to a situation where, as prosecutors lose their checking function, police power becomes bloated.

With criticism that the Democratic Party could not have fully imagined the many problems that would arise when it pushed the reform, calls are growing for institutional safeguards to ensure fairness in police investigations.

As police investigative powers have expanded since the Prosecution Reform, there are fears that such conduct will not be limited to a few isolated cases. In particular, testimony has emerged that law firms are scrambling to recruit veteran police officers with wide personal networks, such as investigation team leaders at local stations or senior practitioners.

This suggests that as internal police connections grow more important after the reform, unfair competition may intensify within the judicial system.

The expansion of police investigative power reaching the law firm market, and the possibility that problems such as the "advantage of former officials" (jeongwan yewu) could resurface, are seen as a serious issue.

Criticism has been raised that the Prosecution Reform is distorting the entire judicial system in order to save one person, Lee Jae-myung. There is concern that this could further entrench a society where "the rich go free, the poor are punished" (yuJeon-muJoe, muJeon-yuJoe).

With prosecutors' checking function gone and power concentrated in the police, a structure may form in which people with money and power can easily escape the law, while others suffer greater disadvantage.

Because a judicial overhaul aimed at a specific politician could become a serious obstacle to the realization of justice for all citizens, calls are growing for deep reflection on the reform's side effects and for improvement measures.

A warning was issued that electing a politician with judicial risk could cause serious harm to citizens. Regardless of party support, the argument is that citizens should choose politicians who uphold basic principles.

It was emphasized that people with criminal records, those who betray the public and make abnormal claims, or those who fail to fulfill the four basic duties of citizens should not be chosen as political leaders, because a politician's judicial risk can lead directly to national risk.

The message conveyed was that only when individual citizens set clear standards for choosing politicians and vote based on principle and common sense can a healthy future for the Republic of Korea be expected.