Kim Min-seok, a former prime minister and a contender for the Democratic Party of Korea's next leadership, and Jung Chung-rae, a former party leader, clashed over the government's proposal to "handle the Criminal Procedure Act in May," trading accusations over who is telling the truth. The dispute centers on whether the government requested the party leadership to process the May bill abolishing supplementary investigation authority. Kim said the party rejected the request, while Jung pushed back that there was no request at all, confronting the claim head-on.
Kim said on the morning of the 31st on a YouTube program, "The government requested in May that we handle a prosecutorial reform plan centered on abolishing supplementary investigation authority," adding, "The party refused." He went on, "Then we said, at least hold a forum," and "when that was also refused, we pressed several times and finally held a forum." He added, "We could not deliver the abolition plan for supplementary investigation authority to the party, because the bill is delivered only if the party accepts it."
Kim also argued that even before May, there was communication with the government side during discussions on abolishing supplementary investigation authority. He said, "(Before May) the head of the prosecutorial reform task force under the Prime Minister's Office visited the National Assembly and met with lawmakers Kim Yong-min and Choo Mi-ae," adding, "At that meeting, Rep. Kim raised many issues, and Rep. Choo raised fewer." He continued, "Naturally, they must have gone to the party, right?" and said, "(The task force head) came back after hearing that Jung Chung-rae would process a first draft without supplementary investigation authority in February."
Kim said he was puzzled that Jung immediately expressed an intention to handle the first legislative draft, adding that he judged the contents to be lacking. He said, "At the time, amid the Myeong–Cheong conflict, I thought Jung hurried to wrap it up, conscious of the criticism," and pointed out, "If the party had clearly aligned in advance, there would have been no such confusion."
Jung, on the other hand, said he never received any bill from the government. Meeting reporters right after a forum titled "Measures to strengthen victims' human rights after the abolition of prosecutorial investigative authority," held at the National Assembly on the morning of the 31st, he said, "If there was a request, that means calling me first, making a proposal, or asking to meet—that's a request," and shot back, "Should I lay open all my call logs?"
He added, "I never received a call in May asking me to process it, nor did I receive a proposal to meet," and said, "If you are going to make a request, you should do it to the party leader or the floor leader, but there was no such contact."
Jung also said, "I don't know why, on such a grave issue, they did not make a request to the party leader and floor leader and instead went through various channels," adding, "Since they never asked me, they don't know what I think, do they?" He continued, "Why are they talking as if I refused?"