A former Korean history instructor turned YouTuber, Jeon Han-gil (legal name Jeon Yu-gwan), who is under investigation on suspicion of defaming President Lee Jae-myung and Reform Party leader Lee Jun-seok, plans to file complaints against the police and prosecutors.
According to a News1 report on the 27th, Jeon's side sent by mail on the 24th complaints to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) accusing police and prosecution officials of abuse of authority to obstruct the exercise of rights and of distorting the law. Jeon's side filed a complaint with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office against a police officer with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Criminal Investigation Unit for abuse of authority to obstruct the exercise of rights. They argued that exposing Jeon to the media in handcuffs after completing a pretrial detention hearing (substantive review of the warrant) on the 16th infringed on his right to personality.
The hearing ended around noon, but Jeon's defense team protested the handcuffing, delaying the transfer by about two hours. At the time, Jeon's side said, "Putting handcuffs on a suspect who appeared voluntarily is an infringement of the right to personality."
In addition, Jeon's side filed complaints accusing the police officer who applied for the arrest warrant and the prosecutor who requested it of distorting the law. The police officer reportedly sent the complaint to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and the prosecutor sent it to the CIO. Jeon's side is said to have argued that the application and request for the warrant distorted the law, citing as grounds the court's dismissal of the arrest warrant.
Earlier, on the 10th, the police applied for an arrest warrant for Jeon on charges of defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and violation of the Framework Act on Telecommunications, and the prosecution also requested the warrant on the 14th. However, the court dismissed it, saying, "It is hard to see a risk of evidence destruction or flight."