Following the Democratic Party of Korea's request to halt various trials surrounding President Lee Jae-myung, the party has now launched a defense for ruling party figures who were indicted or became subjects of investigations under the Yoon Suk-yeol government, labeling them as 'victims of political prosecution.' The Democratic Party, which had pressured the judiciary with a legislative notice for a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act centered on halting the president's trials, is now broadening the scope of 'victims of political investigations' to include ruling party figures and is putting all its effort into 'preventing judicial risk.'
The Democratic Party's 'Task Force for Responding to Political Prosecutors' Fabricated Indictments' held its second meeting at the National Assembly that day, sharing and reviewing the current status of trials related to the North Korean remittance suspicion case, the Daejang-dong development corruption scandal, and the illegal political fund receipt case involving former Democratic Research Institute Deputy Director Kim Yong.
Task Force commissioners argued about these cases, pointing out that ▲ the prosecution had not submitted relevant evidence records for over a year and ▲ the indictment was based solely on the statements of specific individuals, saying, 'The political intent is clear.'
TF Commissioner Oh Dong-hyun stated, 'The Daejang-dong case is a representative case of illegal and fabricated investigations by the political prosecutors. From the beginning, the Daejang-dong case was conducted under the planned intent of the political prosecutors to 'eliminate President Lee Jae-myung.' ' He referenced the fact that Kim Man-bae, the core figure in the case and the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, was recently acquitted in a Supreme Court ruling on the 'bribery case,' and that accountant Jeong Young-hak claimed during his statements that he faced pressure and inducement from the prosecution.
In particular, during the meeting that day, the commissioners strongly criticized the court's refusal to acknowledge 'Google timeline,' which was a key issue in the appeal regarding Kim Yong's alleged receipt of illegal political funds amounting to hundreds of millions of won.
Earlier, Kim's side denied the charges of receiving illegal funds on May 3 and June-July 2021 and submitted the Google timeline as alibi evidence, but the prosecution rebutted that the data had been revised multiple times until just before submission, compromising its integrity. Kim's side countered that the submitted timeline was unmodifiable raw data and that there were no issues with the reliability of the evidence, but the court did not accept it. In this regard, Member Lee Geon-tae claimed, 'Despite the clear acknowledgment of the probative value, the court accepted the prosecution's opinion.'
The Task Force plans to expand the scope of cases it will address in the future. Member Lee stated, 'While the case involving President Lee Jae-myung will be the main focus, it will not be limited to that. We will coordinate with other members to prioritize significant cases,' adding that they will initially review cases involving politically motivated indictments, those relying solely on verbal testimony, and those with clear contradictory evidence or circumstances. He also noted that the statistics manipulation case involving the Board of Audit and Inspection during the Moon Jae-in administration could be added.
They also mentioned the need for special prosecutor introduction alongside demands for oversight of the Ministry of Justice or the prosecution regarding issues deemed illegal indictments.
The Democratic Party has also sharpened its focus on the prosecution's actions against former President Moon Jae-in's family. The Democratic Party's 'Former Administration Political Oppression Countermeasures Committee' visited the Constitutional Court that day to file a constitutional petition concerning the prosecution's decision to suspend indictment against former President Moon's daughter and son-in-law. Committee Chairperson Kim Young-jin and other figures classified as part of the so-called 'pro-Moon faction,' including Han Byung-do and Hwang Hee, participated in a press conference.
Earlier, the prosecution had indicted former President Moon Jae-in without detention on charges (violating the Serious Crime Punishment Act) for having his former son-in-law Lee Sang-jik, a former Democratic Party lawmaker, employed at an airline he effectively owned, while suspending indictment against his daughter and son-in-law.
They claimed, 'During the past four years, the prosecution has conducted investigations with no interest in the substance and truth of the cases; its only goal has been to politically oppress former President Moon.'
In particular, regarding the decision to suspend indictment against Dahye, they remarked, 'This is clearly an act of politically branding her and a malicious form of political vengeance,' and urged the Constitutional Court to 'make a proper judgment regarding the politically motivated investigations that align with the ruling party's agenda, aimed at humiliation.'
The Democratic Party's extensive response seems to be aimed at escalating the 'prosecutorial accountability' offensive, as all trials related to President Lee have essentially been halted. The five main trials surrounding President Lee (including the case of violating the Public Official Election Act's remand review, allegations of preferential treatment in the Daejang-dong development, misuse of corporate credit cards, North Korean remittance, and allegations of perjury) have all been postponed based on Article 84 of the Constitution, which states that, 'A president shall not be indicted during his term except for cases of insurrection or treason.'
Some within the political sphere pointed out that such movements from the ruling party should not be perceived as pressuring the prosecution and the judiciary.
Political commentator Kim Sang-il said, 'While one can hold the position of a 'political investigation,' (the trials) require fair processes and conclusions. If it appears to the public that the Democratic Party is attempting to influence the judicial system through pressure, it differs little from the excessive investigations of the previous administration,' adding that 'there is a need for caution.'