A pretrial detention warrant hearing for four key executives, including Chairman Kim Byung-joo and Vice Chairman Kim Kwang-il of private equity firm MBK Partners, will be held on the morning of the 13th. The hearing will be overseen by Seoul Central District Court warrant judge Director General Park Jeong-ho. Park is known as a "principled" judge who values principles and applies strict standards in warrant reviews.
According to the legal community, the key to the issuance of the warrants will be how specifically the allegations against each suspect have been substantiated and how much their respective involvement has been proven.
According to legal sources, Director General Park (Judicial Research and Training Institute Class 32) began as a judge at the Gangneung branch of the Chuncheon District Court in 2003 and then served at the Suwon District Court, the Seoul Central and Northern District Courts, as a presiding judge at the Masan branch of the Changwon District Court and at the Suwon District Court. Park was then assigned to the Seoul Central District Court through the regular judicial appointments on Feb. 24 last year. Park also concurrently served as the registrar review officer and the director of the Registration Bureau at the National Court Administration.
Since being assigned to the Seoul Central District Court, Director General Park has handled numerous warrant validity hearings in major cases. Recently, in Nov. last year, Park reviewed an arrest warrant requested by the special counsel on insurrection for former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn on charges including incitement to insurrection. At the time, Park dismissed the request, saying, "There is insufficient need for detention, and the grounds for detention, such as risk of flight or destruction of evidence, are insufficiently substantiated."
Earlier, on Oct. 15 of the same year, when the special counsel on insurrection requested an arrest warrant for former Minister of the Ministry of Justice Park Seong-jae on charges including involvement in an illegal martial law scheme, Director General Park also dismissed the request, saying, "There is insufficient substantiation regarding the reasonableness of detention or concerns about flight or destruction of evidence."
At the time, the court specified the reasons for dismissal. Director General Park said, "There is room for dispute over how the suspect came to recognize the illegality of the (martial law), the specific content of that recognized illegality, and whether and to what extent the measures objectively taken were illegal, and this needs to be determined through sufficient argument." Park added, "Considering the level of substantiation to date and the progress of the investigation and the suspect's appearances, the principle of investigation without detention takes precedence over concerns about flight and destruction of evidence."
In other words, while examining how specifically the elements of the crime have been substantiated for the suspect, Park appears to have taken an approach that prioritizes investigation without detention if concerns about flight or destruction of evidence are not specifically substantiated.
On the other hand, there have been cases where specific substantiation of the risk of destroying evidence led to the issuance of a warrant. In Nov. last year, the special counsel on insurrection requested an arrest warrant for former National Intelligence Service Director Cho Tae-yong on charges of dereliction of duty and violating the National Intelligence Service Act, and at the time Director General Park issued the warrant, saying, "There is a concern that evidence will be destroyed."
Accordingly, in the MBK Partners-related warrant hearing this time, the key will likely be how far the prosecution substantiates the elements of the crimes, each suspect's degree of involvement, and concerns about flight or destruction of evidence, and how the court receives the defense's rebuttals. Defense attorneys for Chairman Kim are said to have prepared more than 100 presentation slides to seek dismissal of the warrant.
The fact that the warrant hearing was moved up by 3 hours and 30 minutes from 1:30 p.m. to 10 a.m. on the 13th is also seen as reflecting this atmosphere. According to legal sources, the start time for a warrant validity hearing is typically moved up when requested by the defense team or when the court determines there is a large volume of documents to review.
The legal community is watching whether the prosecution will present specific evidence regarding Chairman Kim's prior knowledge and involvement in the process of issuing commercial paper.
A criminal defense attorney said, "Since the investigation has been underway since last year, there is a possibility the prosecution will present evidence the defense did not anticipate," adding, "Warrant hearings are time-constrained, so if the court determines that part of the crime has been substantiated, it can issue a warrant rather than delving deeply into each piece of evidence." The attorney added, "However, whether warrants will be issued for all four suspects depends on the involvement circumstances and the density of evidence presented for each individual."