Ju Jin-woo slams Yun Sang-hyun's NEC remarks… 'acting as the NEC's defense counsel'

Ju stressed that the purpose of the special committee is to investigate without sanctuary whether, if there was deliberate manipulation of turnout, vote shares could also have been manipulated. He added that treating such allegations as agitation obstructs the chair's role on the special committee.

Ju stressed that if deliberate intent in turnout manipulation is confirmed, the special committee must investigate without sanctuary whether vote shares were manipulated too.

Ju argued that dismissing an issue of this magnitude as agitation is an act that obstructs the role of the special committee chair. He said Yun's remarks represent the NEC's position and undermine the original purpose of the parliamentary investigation.

Ju concluded that Yun's conduct defends the NEC and compromises the independence and fairness of the investigation, failing to meet the public's expectation that the probe will secure election transparency.

Ju stressed that this is not a simple mistake. He said that with more than half of the data failing to match, no data can be trusted, and that because deliberate manipulation has now been found, the NEC has no room left for excuses.

Ju said Yun gave the staff a way to explain away the problem, which was inappropriate conduct for a special committee chair.

Ju said he loudly protested to a fellow party lawmaker for the first time at a standing committee session. He explained that he considered Yun's conduct a 'foul' and could not let it pass.

Such conduct raised concerns that the investigation may be seen as an attempt to support a particular claim rather than to establish objective facts. Ju's protest shows there is also disagreement within the special committee about Yun's role.

Ju said the Democrats' intent is too easy to see through, and he was certain that the recount demand has some purpose beyond a simple recount. His remarks raised doubts about the motive behind the recount demand, suggesting a political aim.

He stressed that public sentiment is not so simple, and that a forced seizure of the ballot boxes would provoke strong public resistance.

In conclusion, Ju asserted that the Democrats' recount attempt is not sincere but a political trick, and that such an attempt will never succeed.

Ju Jin-woo, a People Power Party lawmaker, argued that reopening the boxes at Olympic Park, which he had visited twice, is meaningless. He emphasized that it is more important to revisit the NEC server with forensic experts and verify what was not properly examined in the previous inspection.

Ju held that true verification means gathering everything the NEC is trying to hide and checking it thoroughly. He insisted that reopening the ballot boxes has no meaning, and that a thorough examination of the server is essential to establish the truth.

Ju argued this means future data was entered in advance, revealing planned and organized false entries. He also said he found a 'twin polling district' phenomenon in which turnout in different polling districts rose by exactly the same amount, explaining that this is a typical pattern when one person enters fictitious data.

Based on this evidence, Ju was convinced that deliberate manipulation of turnout is clearly revealed. This is expected to be presented as decisive evidence directly refuting the NEC's 'human error' explanation.

He explained that although the NEC had been reluctant to submit raw voting data, it agreed to do so after he formally raised the issue at a hearing. Ju stressed that this raw data must be thoroughly verified once submitted.

Based on the discovery of deliberate turnout manipulation, he strongly urged a joint investigation headquarters of prosecutors and police or a special prosecutor to investigate. Ju said he plans to examine vote-share issues closely again and expressed his determination to establish the truth through verification of the raw data.

The NEC had explained that because the many figures in the system, from turnout to vote share, match exactly, tampering with one would produce mismatches with other data, making fraud impossible.

But Ju said actual checks showed the data were all wrong and that its integrity had broken down. He stressed that once deliberately manipulated data is found, it is only natural to doubt the reliability of the rest, and pointed out that the NEC's argument no longer carries persuasive weight.

He said that if investigative capacity were 100, it is operating at only about 5%, and that if he were given just two investigators he could move faster than the entire headquarters.

Ju said that if irregularities in turnout had been revealed, common sense requires expanding the probe to possible irregularities in vote share and other areas, and he could not understand why the investigation remains confined to turnout manipulation. He asked whether the past presidential and general elections are sacrosanct, and why search-and-seizure and securing evidence were not carried out in advance despite the possibility of evidence destruction.

He said that while Hwang's own daughter is sent to study abroad with annual education spending of 42 million won, asking young people in Korea to live in converted retired buses is unfair. He stressed it is the same 'fairness' issue that angered young people over the admissions-fraud scandal involving former Justice Minister Cho Kuk under the Moon Jae-in administration.

Ju questioned how anyone could come up with such an idea, voicing strong dissatisfaction with a policy proposal disconnected from young people's actual circumstances.

He criticized that most policies of the Lee Jae-myung government protect vested interests, while young people face a lack of good jobs and are being denied real opportunities.

Ju said that policies handing out an extra 100,000 or 200,000 won a month as 'youth welfare' cannot change young people's lives. He stressed the severity of the reality young people face, and argued that current policy direction shows insufficient consideration for the younger generation.

He argued that current policy direction shifts burdens onto the younger generation, so structural reforms such as pension reform are urgently needed.

Ju insisted that reforms, including a proper pension reform, must be carried out in light of the reality of a shrinking young population. He interpreted that the public sentiment gathered at Olympic Park carries not only the infringement of voting rights but also resistance to the vested-interest injustice across society.

He also recalled that Prime Minister Kim Min-seok (Ju mistakenly said Rep. Kim Min-seok), before becoming a Democratic Party candidate, had pointed out problems with abolishing supplementary investigative powers and pushed policy through a task force. Ju raised his voice, saying citizens' lives and safety must not be held hostage to the Democratic Party's national convention, and emphasized that important policy decisions must not be distorted by political circumstances.

Thus, he said, Lee's statements that 'I didn't read it' and 'to be precise, I didn't know' reflect a self-defensive impulse to distance himself from the situation.

Ju strongly criticized that a person in a position responsible for citizens' lives and safety should step down if unable to fulfill that role. He argued Lee's remarks were extremely irresponsible and could be read as a 'confession' that he pushed for abolition while knowing its problems.

He argued this is not genuine reform but merely the destruction of the system for the Democrats' benefit.

He cited the case of pickpocketing, which dropped sharply with the spread of CCTV, and stressed that the systems for detecting crime must be built tightly.

Ju likened abolishing supplementary investigative powers to leaving several 'back doors' open in such a tight system. He warned that this would give criminals a way out, leading to serious problems threatening public safety, and once again stressed the importance of a justice system that must prioritize citizens' safety.