Representative Han Dong-hoon's Transcript Editing Controversy… Allegations of Omission of Key Content

Reporter Kang Jin-gu pointed out that such actions could lead to legal issues, including defamation under current law.

If it is difficult to release the full transcript as is, selectively disclosing parts that distort the context or are unfavorable could lead to further legal problems.

Reporter Park Dae-yong added that the secured transcript is about half of the total recording, explaining that it might be difficult to grasp the entire context from the released material alone.

This sentence was pointed out as playing a very important role in determining the content and nature of the request.

Reporter Park Dae-yong emphasized that the absence of this sentence could create a misunderstanding, as if a direct request was made to the MFDS Commissioner.

The incident unfolded as Yang Su-jin requested a check from Kim Seung-won when Genencell's clinical trial approval was delayed, and Kim Seung-won contacted MFDS Commissioner Kim Gang-lip, who then relayed it to working-level staff.

Representative Han Dong-hoon characterized this process as illegal solicitation and leaked it to the media, but there is also considerable counter-argument that handling civil complaints by a representative falls within the usual scope of their duties.

Analysis of the transcript found no evidence that Representative Kim Seung-won exerted direct pressure for approval; he merely conveyed a request to check on progress. Specifically, conversations between Representative Kim Seung-won and businesswoman Yang Su-jin revealed that the request was merely an inquiry, not a direct request for approval from the MFDS Commissioner.

The transcript released by Han Dong-hoon's side was edited to make it appear as if Representative Kim Seung-won immediately requested the MFDS without any review upon receiving a call from Yang Su-jin. This was a result of intentionally omitting the fact that Representative Kim received and reviewed materials from Ms. Yang via email.

Such editing could create a negative impression, making it seem as if Representative Kim hastily responded to the request.

However, this sentence was deleted in the transcript released by Han Dong-hoon's side, leading to the misunderstanding that Representative Kim Seung-won made a direct request for approval to the MFDS Commissioner. This appears to be an attempt to distort the essence of the request and steer the incident in a negative direction.

The original transcript included remarks denying allegations of financial gain, such as, 'Do I get a commission there? Do I get anything?' It was also confirmed that there was a conversation warning discretion, to the effect of 'be careful, as it's subject to a political National Assembly audit.'

However, both of these passages were deleted from the transcript released by Han Dong-hoon's side. This is seen as an attempt to distort the essence of the incident by making it appear as if Representative Kim Seung-won received compensation, or at least did not explicitly deny allegations of quid pro quo.

In the transcript released by Han Dong-hoon's side, the order of conversations such as 'help with the surgery, it's fine' and 'I'll put in funds' was artificially altered. In particular, money-related conversations like 'said they'd put in 800 million to 1 billion' were placed at the very beginning.

This change in order is interpreted as an attempt to manipulate the causality of the incident, making it seem as if an illicit request and quid pro quo were agreed upon preemptively.

However, it was confirmed that this mention appeared 2 to 3 times in the transcript released by Representative Han Dong-hoon's side.

This is interpreted as an attempt to repeatedly expose a specific amount of money, thereby exaggerating the suspicion by making it seem as if financial compensation was the core of the incident.

Reporter Park Dae-yong explained that the omission of mentions about the timing of convertible bond (CB) issuance and interest terms distorted the context of the financial transaction. While the remark clearly indicated a simple borrowing relationship, its deletion left room for misunderstanding it as an illicit transaction.

It was confirmed that former Presidential Senior Secretary for Political Affairs Choi Jae-sung's remark, 'I did it with good intentions,' was a response regarding Choi Jae-sung's own motives in the original transcript. However, in the transcript released by Representative Han Dong-hoon's side, this remark was edited to read as if it were a response to Representative Kim Seung-won's solicitation.

This manipulation of context is pointed out as an attempt to make it seem as though former Secretary Choi Jae-sung accepted Representative Kim Seung-won's request with 'good intentions,' thereby steering the entire incident towards an allegation of lobbying.

I'll put him on the phone.' This indicates evidence of private interaction contradicting Representative Kim's explanation.

In particular, with confirmation of a call between Representative Kim and the judge just before clinical trial approval, questions are being raised about the credibility of his explanation.

New Tam-sa analyzed that it is unreasonable to connect lobbying to an arrest warrant review two years later.

It is difficult to conclude that a simple friendly relationship directly influenced the dismissal of a warrant two years later.

Conversations between Yang Su-jin and Representative Kim Seung-won only confirmed a simple request for delay status, not actual Blue House intervention.

Reporter Kang Jin-gu criticized the media for being trapped in the investigative agency's framework and failing to accurately report the facts.

This interpretive dispute blurs the essence of the incident and appears to be an attempt to mold facts according to each party's political stance.

Whether the same sentence is viewed as 'approval pressure' or 'progress check' is a matter that requires a comprehensive assessment of the context and circumstances surrounding the remarks. However, Han Dong-hoon's side is criticized for removing unfavorable context and emphasizing only favorable parts to amplify suspicions.

Representative Kim maintains that he never promised money under any circumstances.

Criticism has been raised that the prosecution's indictment of this case was an forced investigation into a matter that should have been dismissed.

However, Representative Kim Seung-won's side countered that at the time of the suspended indictment on December 27, 2024, the Minister of Justice, Vice Minister, and Prosecutor General were all appointees of the Yoon Seok-yeol government.

Furthermore, a counterattack emerged, suggesting that since Han Dong-hoon himself was the Minister of Justice when the investigation began, the allegations of pressure could instead be directed at former Minister Han Dong-hoon. With both sides' claims clashing directly, the debate surrounding the background of the suspended indictment is intensifying.

This becomes clearer when compared to the case of former Representative Roh Hoe-chan.

In Roh's case, a press conference was covered by parliamentary immunity, but internet postings were excluded from its scope according to precedent. Therefore, Representative Han Dong-hoon's Facebook post is also highly likely to be interpreted as an act outside the scope of parliamentary immunity under the same legal principle.

Genencell applied for clinical trial plan approval from the MFDS on September 23, 2021. A week later, on September 30, the MFDS requested Genencell to supplement data for 14 items.

Subsequently, final approval was granted after an advisory meeting on October 26, following standard procedures.

Representative Han Dong-hoon's side claimed Representative Kim Seung-won's actions constituted 'successful lobbying,' but in the actual conversation, the departments Kim specified for the message were three. Also, the MFDS Commissioner relayed the content to the head of the clinical policy division through his secretary.

Reporter Kang Jin-gu pointed out that in cases of illicit solicitation, it is common practice to verbally and privately convey special requests to the responsible division head, avoiding others' notice. He refuted that the situation, where it was publicly communicated to multiple departments, is far from 'illicit solicitation.' This shows a discrepancy between Representative Han Dong-hoon's claim and realistic lobbying methods.