“Public officials cannot receive gifts or bribes from citizens. However, the prosecution has opened up a way to circumvent that.” (Rep. Jeon Hyeon-hee, Democratic Party of Korea)
“There is no provision in the Anti-Corruption Act to punish the spouse of a public official who has received money or valuables, so they cannot be punished.” (People Power Party Rep. Jang Dong-hyeok)
At the plenary session of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly held on the 23rd, the ruling and opposition parties had a heated argument over the prosecution’s recent conclusion of not guilty in the case of Kim Gun-hee receiving a Dior bag. The Democratic Party called for a reinvestigation, saying, “Prosecutors who cannot investigate those in power should be abolished.” As the Democratic Party continued to point out, Justice Minister Park Sung-jae countered, saying, “How can we enforce it when there are no (punishment) regulations?” and “Should I make the law?”
● Opposition: “Need to order reinvestigation” Ruling: “No punishment provisions”
Opposition lawmakers went on the offensive against the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office’s decision to clear President Yoon Seok-yeol of charges regarding Ms. Kim’s receipt of a Dior bag, saying it had nothing to do with his duties. Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Seung-won, floor leader of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, said, “I am a former judge myself, but there are numerous cases where spouses were simply viewed as receiving something from a public official and punished for bribery.” He added, “Wasn’t it just a luxury bag that Ms. Kim received? Doesn’t the president also have a favorite drink?” Fellow party lawmaker Kim Yong-min took issue with the prosecution’s secret visit to investigate Ms. Kim, saying, “No administration in history has conducted such a shameless investigation.” During his questioning, Legislation and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chung Cheong-rae pointed out the head of the Supreme Court Administration and the head of the Senior Civil Servants’ Corruption Investigation Office, asking, “If your wife received a 3 million won Dior bag, would you say, ‘It’s okay to accept it? ’”
Arrows were also directed at Minister Park, who attended the meeting. Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Seong-yoon claimed that Minister Park should exercise his investigative authority and issue an order for reinvestigation even now.
Rep. Jeon Hyun-hee of the Democratic Party, who served as the chair of the National Human Rights Commission, also engaged in a war of words with Minister Park. When Rep. Jeon repeatedly demanded an answer, asking, “What does the Minister of Justice think about the (prosecution’s) decision of not guilty?” Minister Park responded, “If there is no regulation, then you, as the chair of the National Human Rights Commission, should legislate,” and “How can you enforce it when there is no regulation?” Rep. Jang also emphasized, “I don’t think we can arbitrarily interpret the law or expand the scope of punishment due to the necessity of punishment.”
Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min asked Commissioner Oh Dong-woon, “Will you summon Ms. Kim? Will you go and conduct an on-site investigation?” Commissioner Oh responded, “An investigation according to principles means that we will conduct an investigation that is at eye level with the public.” This is interpreted as leaving open the possibility of Ms. Kim’s attendance.
● Conflict over Jang Si-ho’s detention center appearance record
The ruling and opposition parties also clashed over the controversy over the preferential treatment given to Jang Si-ho, the nephew of Choi Soon-sil, a suspect in the state affairs scandal. The Democratic Party raised suspicions that Prosecutor Kim Young-chul had a personal relationship with Jang during the special investigation into the state affairs scandal and had him practice giving false testimony.
In relation to this, Democratic Party lawmaker Seo Young-kyo stated, “While Mr. Jang was in the Seoul Detention Center, the special prosecutors summoned him a whopping 78 times.” He continued, “On January 5, 2017, the special prosecutors’ investigation ended at 9:30 PM, but the detention center entry and exit records show it as 2 AM (the next day).” He asked, “What was Mr. Jang doing for 4 hours and 30 minutes?”
On the other hand, the People Power Party refuted that there is no record of Mr. Jang appearing on December 6, 2017, the day that Prosecutor Kim called Mr. Jang and made him commit perjury. People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo refuted, saying, “According to the confirmation of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee at the Seoul Detention Center, Mr. Jang and Prosecutor Kim did not meet on December 6, 2017,” and asked, “Are you saying that he instigated perjury through telepathy?” Delete
At the meeting that day, the special prosecutor’s bill to investigate the alleged overseas visit to India by former President Moon Jae-in’s wife Kim Jung-sook and the special prosecutor’s bill to investigate the alleged stock price manipulation by Kim, proposed by the ruling and opposition parties respectively, were referred to the legislative subcommittees.
Reporter Yoon Myeong-jin [email protected]
Reporter Lee Sang-heon [email protected]
-
- great
- 0dog
-
- I’m sad
- 0dog
-
- I’m angry
- 0dog
-
- I recommend it
- dog
Hot news right now
2024-08-24 00:30:30