[News fighting] Jung Sung-ho said, "Chief prosecutors' group statements are inappropriate..."Political prosecutor".

[YTN Radio News Fighting Bae Seunghee]
□ Broadcasting: FM 94.5 (07:15 - 09:00)
□ Broadcast date and time: November 28, 2024 (Thursday)
□ Host: Attorney Bae Seung-hee
□ Cast member: Jung Sung-ho of the Democratic Party of Korea

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information.

[YTN Radio <News Fighting, Bae Seunghee]> Please reveal that it's about the interview.
◆ Attorney Bae Seung-hee (hereinafter referred to as Bae Seung-hee): I'm Bae Seung-hee from News Fighting. We will continue with the second part of the issue interview. As the Democratic Party seeks to impeach the prosecutor, it is increasing the level of pressure targeting the prosecution. There is also a movement to overturn the trial of the Public Official Election Act, which Lee Jae-myung was convicted of. This analysis is coming out. In this regard, you're the head of the Chin Myung-gye, right? Let's talk with Jung Sung-ho of the Democratic Party of Korea. Hello,

◇ Jung Sung-ho, member of the Democratic Party of Korea (hereinafter referred to as Jung Sung-ho): Yes, hello. However, I am not the head of the pro-Myeonggye group.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: As far as I know, the arc is the leader of the pro-Myeonggye.

◇Sung-ho Jung: It's wrong.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Okay. Then, should I just call him Jung Sung-ho? I see. This time, the Judiciary Committee decided to hold an impeachment hearing on two prosecutors, Kang Vaccine and Um Hee-jun, who investigated the Baekhyun-dong case in Daejang-dong, Lee Jae-myung's case, on the 11th of next month. Is he trying to influence the outcome of the trial? Or is it retaliation?

◇ Jung Sung-ho: I don't think judges are affected by impeachment hearings by prosecutors in the National Assembly. However, there are a lot of complaints about prosecutors' dust transfer investigation and selective investigation and prosecution. In particular, I think the National Assembly is sufficiently in the process of raising questions about such matters as why they were cleared of charges of manipulating stock prices in relation to First Lady Kim Gun-hee, and various suspicions have been raised in the case of Representative Lee Jae-myung and those involved.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Yes. But what if the impeachment hearings can be held in the same way in other ordinary people's cases?

◇ Jeong Seong-ho: In the case of these prosecutors in question, aren't they related to Lieutenant Governor Lee Hwa-young anyway? That's also related to CEO Lee Jae-myung. Lee Jae-myung was the leading candidate who lost the last presidential election by 0.73 percent and is now the leader of the main opposition party. I'm the leader of the majority party. I've been investigating this very persistently. In the process, I think it was very unreasonable, and we tried to appease former Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young, and there were circumstances that tried to appease those involved anyway, so shouldn't we check those parts?

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I'm just trying to check. But this time, aren't we going to impeach Lee Chang-soo, the chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and the commanders who cleared him of charges in the Deutsche Motors stock manipulation case involving Kim Geon-hee? You're going to post the impeachment on the 4th, right? However, the command of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office also protested in this regard. Yesterday, all of the senior prosecutors Lee came forward. What do you think?

◇ Jung Sung-ho: I think 33 senior prosecutors even made a very statement to the prosecution's central prosecutor's office, but it's very inappropriate. Impeachment is the unique authority of the National Assembly under the Constitution and laws anyway. It is not possible for prosecutors to claim that this impeachment motion is unconstitutional or illegal. Isn't it the final judgment of the Constitutional Court whether or not the unconstitutional violation is judged by the National Assembly as a representative of the people, and whether or not there was a reason for impeachment? Are there only Korean prosecutors who have issues related to themselves like prosecutors and make collective statements and criticize the National Assembly? I think this behavior is rather that behavior for me, who admits to being a political prosecutor. Of course, individual prosecutors have internal problems with impeachment motion. You can argue that it interferes with the investigation. However, I think it is a little inappropriate for the prosecutor to make a collective statement and speak again.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Yes. Don't judges also make a statement when they hold a national meeting of judges?

◇ Jung Sung-ho: It doesn't come out like this. There is a great distrust of the prosecution's investigation into why the biggest problem came to this point. Prosecutors target a particular person, dust off and investigate, then selectively investigate and selectively prosecute. There are a lot of complaints about this. I want you to reflect on yourself.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Yes. However, if we attempt to impeach the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, wouldn't we expect a paralysis of work? But the Central District Prosecutors' Office...

◇ Seong-ho Jung: No, the principle of the prosecutor's union has disappeared, but isn't it an organization that actually moves as the prosecutor's identity? If you don't have the head of the Central District Prosecutors' Office, someone else can act on behalf of the first deputy chief, and the head of the Central District Prosecutors' Office doesn't investigate directly, right? So I can tell you that it is completely different from the truth that the prosecution's work proceeds.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Okay. CEO Lee Jae-myung is also focusing on muksanism, which focuses on people's livelihoods and the economy. Does this prosecutor have anything to do with impeachment and muksanist people's livelihoods?

◇ Jung Sung-ho: No, there's no direct relationship anyway. However, the issue of living is the most important for the people anyway. People's livelihood is the most important issue and the economy is the most important issue, but I want the prosecution, the best investigative judicial institution in Korea, to investigate and prosecute fairly and equitably. Aren't you very dissatisfied with that? It could end up as a problem for the people.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. Some of the Democratic Party of Korea seem to be taking this position when Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Public Official Election Act, was sentenced to prison and filed a lawsuit against the unconstitutional law. What do you think?

◇Jung Sung-ho: Some lawmakers have suggested that it is unconstitutional. I also think that the crime of publicizing false information is too restrictive of freedom of expression. If so, you will be sentenced to death with a fine of 1 million won 20 years ago. I also raised the question of whether this standard was too much. However, what is the premise? I am sure that the public office election law must be agreed upon by the ruling and opposition parties. Since this is setting the rules of the game, and it is presented to the people, the final referee, so the players must agree. The ruling and opposition parties must agree to deal with the public election law, but such issues have always been raised by lawmakers of the ruling and opposition parties in the past. A bill would have been raised. That's why this time doesn't look good. So anyway, since the Public Official Election Act is handled before the next general election, I will say that the ruling and opposition parties need to take time to fully discuss and agree.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: What I'm doing right now is...

◇ Jung Sung-ho: It has nothing to do with that. Rather, it would be disadvantageous to do something like this. Rather.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: That's the position. So, there is no choice but to criticize Lee Jae-myung for deleting this false information and making the nullification of the election 10 million won. In a timely manner.

◇ Jung Sung-ho: So this is in the bill. As far as I know, the supplementary provisions have been added to the supplementary provisions that do not apply to the ongoing cases. So I asked Lee Jae-myung if that would affect the sentencing, but as I said, the public office election law is not a matter that the opposition party can unilaterally deal with just because it is a majority party. That's right.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Okay. In this regard, we have no choice but to talk about perjury teachers again. Kim Jin-sung, the person who perjured was convicted and the person who supposedly taught perjured was acquitted. I acknowledged that the court requested perjury, but I couldn't admit the teacher's intention.

◇ Jung Sung-ho: So I asked him to testify. I asked for that testimony and testified accordingly. But isn't that testimony perjury? But I mean, you didn't tell me to lie because you were against my memory and asked me to favor you. So, I asked you to tell me the truth as you remember, so there was a request to testify above perjury anyway, but it was judged that there was no intention of the teacher or that the witness Kim Jin-sung wanted to perjury. In that regard, I think that the prosecution conducted a conversation between representative Lee Jae-myung and witness Kim Jin-sung, extracted it, and put it together to prosecute it. If you look at the whole context, you don't remember it as it is. Tell me what you remember, and wouldn't there be some witnesses that you wanted representative Lee Jae-myung to do? I wish I could testify like this. I said that I don't remember that part, so I said, "Then don't tell me."

◆ Bae Seung-hee: If it wasn't for CEO Lee Jae-myung's request in the first place, wouldn't Kim Jin-sung have had no reason to perjury?

◇ Jung Sung-ho: That's why I asked for testimony. Give me some testimony.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: The parts that ask you to tell me what you remember, even if you don't remember.

◇ Jung Sung-ho: So he did what he remembered, but the important thing is that witness Kim Jin-sung did not perjure me at first with regard to this perjury. There was no representative teacher Lee Jae-myung. That's what I said. But I changed my words later. I perjured myself. The perjury was that CEO Lee Jae-myung was a teacher. I think the process is very problematic, and I think the court has also referred to the arguments of the lawyers related to it to a considerable extent. Because this case has six perjury facts. He confessed that all six perjury were perjury, but two were not perjury in the court. You confessed, but in light of the other things you said on the other evidence, you did it according to your memory. Then I acquitted him. Those four have confessed, but there is no other evidence. So he admitted that he perjured himself because he confessed, and it's very strange if you look closely at the process. That.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Rather, CEO Lee Jae-myung was the governor of Gyeonggi-do at the time, and Kim Jin-sung was doing a business related to Baekhyun-dong. Considering those relationships, could CEO Lee Jae-myung have rejected it when he asked me to tell him what I remember?

◇Jung Sung-ho: But as far as I know, CEO Lee Jae-myung didn't know that Kim Jin-sung, a witness, played a role in Baekhyun-dong's business as a lobbyist.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Don't you ask In-seop like this?

◇ Jung Sung-ho: It's Inseop. Since Kim In-seop knew it, wasn't he punished for playing the main role? But the problem is that Kim Jin-sung was not punished at all. Even while being investigated, there are suspicions. In fact, more than that, our witness Kim Jin-sung was the secretary of former Mayor Kim Byung-ryang, who was originally in trouble. He was a secretary and filed a complaint against CEO Lee Jae-myung, who was an agent at the time. It was actually in a hostile relationship. There was no reason to perjure himself against his memory, but he said he perjured himself, so this process is speculative. I have no choice but to guess that there was no conciliation or some kind of transaction by the prosecution.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. Aren't the parts that I called Kim Jin-sung several times and talked about after that, and the parts that the lawyer gives me a summary of his argument and tells me what content can be viewed as a teacher? from the perspective of the legal profession And the prime time of teaching behavior is also prosecuted when you commit teaching behavior. Whether or not Jung Beom will act is not prosecuted when he says he did it.

◇ Jung Sung-ho: That's right. However, the conversation between representative Lee Jae-myung and witness Kim Jin-sung was in December 2018. But the testimony was in February. It was after more than two months. Representative Lee does not know how the lawyers contacted him and wrote the affidavit after the conversation. Then, it is said that this case itself gave a summary of the argument, but the first cause of this case occurred in 2002. And the testimony was in 2018. This trial has now been adjudicated in 2024 after that. Isn't it natural to ask for testimony in relation to a case that is 16 years old? It seems to me that this was the case, so try to bring back your memories. I think it can be seen as the scope of the usual right to defend.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: If you don't know, you can just say you don't know.

◇Jung Sung-ho: But that's 16 years old. These are three incidents.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: If you don't know, you should say you don't know.

◇Jung Sung-ho: It's a very strange case if you look at the intervention that this case was made.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Actually, because Mayor Kim Byung-ryang died, we had no choice but to call Kim Jin-sung, and if you give him a summary of his argument, he can't recall his memory, but say it according to the content.

◇ Jung Sung-ho: No, it's not. You can see it that way, but the testimony of Lee Jae-myung and Kim Jin-sung witnesses was that they were framed for spreading false information in violation of the Public Official Election Act. There was no impact on the verdict in relation to the false accusation. Of course, that's the reason for the sentencing. In fact, this is not a matter to be prosecuted because it is my opinion that Lee Jae-myung was framed because it is clearly his opinion when he spoke to Kim Jin-sung that he did not intend to investigate. However, the prosecutor overcharged him. So I have no choice but to tell you that it was the situation at that time. Representative Lee Jae-myung knew that he was clearly innocent because this was his opinion.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: But I knew he was clearly innocent, but the Dong-A Ilbo's exclusive report came out recently. Earlier this year in January, Bae, who was the vice chairman of the Democratic Party's strategic planning department, met with Kim, the so-called KBS director, and the KBS witness was arranged by Lee, who joined the company and knew him. So the prosecution is again cajoling this blatant witness. What do you think of this part when you claim this in the perjury teacher case?

◇Jung Sung-ho: I don't know what that part has to do with representative Lee Jae-myung.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Yes. I just did it on my own because it was my real name. Regardless of CEO Lee Jae-myung.

◇ Jung Sung-ho: That's right. The relationship is something that the prosecution must prove, and I don't think it has been proven at all what a causal relationship that has with the actions of the perjury teacher and representative Lee Jae-myung.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Does the second trial expect to be innocent of the second trial?

◇Jung Sung-ho: Of course I will. I think I'm innocent.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: In fact, the 29th was the day of the appeal trial of former Gyeonggi-do Province Vice Governor of Peace Lee Hwa-young, but it was postponed. To next month. I think this will have a great impact as the lawyer of the former lieutenant governor Lee said that Lee Hwa-young's guilt is Lee Jae-myung's guilt during the trial bail process. The reason why it was postponed and...

◇Jeong Seong-ho: As far as I know, postponing a sentence after setting the date of the judgment is usually such a normal postponement by not being able to write the judgment well or by postponing it when it becomes like this because there is a bit of ambiguity in the record.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: So what is the conclusion about former lieutenant governor Lee Hwa-young?

◇ Jeong Seong-ho: I think there is a very unfair aspect about Lieutenant Governor Lee Hwa-young. I think there is a possibility that another judgment will come out because lawyers have argued enough about various problems in the first trial.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I think there's a possibility. Regarding this, isn't CEO Lee Jae-myung also in charge of Chief Judge Shin Jin-woo of the first trial? They're saying they'll only look at the remittance to North Korea here. If this Lee Hwa-young trial is confirmed. So how does this affect you?

◇Jung Sung-ho: Of course, wouldn't the ruling confirmed in another trial affect another trial? Because it can be used as evidence. However, in this regard, even though it's a family affair, when I say I'm guilty in the ruling, I don't know how it will come out clearly because it's clear, but I think a different conclusion can be reached because there are many reasons to prove it differently.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Not reported.

◇ Jung Sung-ho: Yes, Lee Hwa-young. If I don't know. In any case, I believe that it was the individual action of Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young, but not related to Governor Lee Jae-myung.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. I see. In fact, today's plenary session was about to re-decide the Kim Gun-hee Special Prosecutor Act at the plenary session of the National Assembly, but it was postponed to the 10th of next month due to the agreement between the ruling and opposition parties. The people's power is confident that there will be no vote difference. How do you see it? Do you think there's going to be a leave vote?

◇ Jung Sung-ho: I don't think it was postponed on the assumption that there was a departure vote within the ruling party and a new departure vote was created. Would there be any change in the position of the ruling party or lawmakers after delaying it for a few days or two? The main reason for this delay is that the ruling and opposition parties are now very tight on the budget. Didn't the opposition party cut a lot of the government's special expenses? We also cut a lot of reserves. So on the other hand, there are also budgets demanded by the opposition. There is a lot of conflict in this regard. Some opposition parties now claim this. There is also an opinion that let's just cut it and come up with an amendment, so we should focus on this. If the ruling and opposition parties are in conflict because of the re-decision of the special prosecutor Kim Gun-hee, we can't focus, can we? The same goes for the law. Because of the tax law issues that are very problematic, I understand that in order to focus on the budget and law, which are the original duties of the regular session of the National Assembly, I thought that we should do it by the end of the National Assembly and delayed it.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Do you expect a breakaway vote?

◇Jung Sung-ho: Why would I be so different now?

◆ Bae Seung-hee: It won't come out. However, they claim that the power of this people is a third-party privilege only with the pattern, such as exercising unlimited voting rights. Can't a third party recommend an independent counsel and post it again as an independent counsel if they don't have the right to veto it?

◇Jung Sung-ho: I want the ruling and opposition parties to agree on the premise anyway. If the ruling party is really willing to find out the truth about the case related to Kim Gun-hee or the case related to the Coporal Chae, I would like you to suggest a way to find out the truth. Instead of just claiming that the bill is unconstitutional after seeing what the opposition party is doing, the ruling party is doing it. Even if the sky collapses, we cannot do an independent counsel. No matter how the independent counsel declares that it cannot be done, we are also willing to do the independent counsel. However, if you say you are a member of the opposition party, you have to pay for it yourself. Isn't that how we can negotiate and talk with each other?

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Really? You're seeing controversy over the bulletin board of the People's Power Party. CEO Han Dong-hoon's family name keeps coming out. How are you judging?

◇Jung Sung-ho: Isn't this a very difficult situation for me right now? People's livelihoods are difficult and the diplomatic security situation is difficult, so isn't it a problem within the ruling party? I'm just arguing with the party leader and supreme council members in front of the public with the party bulletin board, but I don't know what the hell they're doing. I'm very embarrassed. Then, if you look at why that's happening, you can't help but suspect that the so-called pro-government figures in the ruling party are shaking to undermine Han Dong-hoon's leadership or moving so systematically to get him out of the race. If not from the standpoint of spectators, isn't the government and the ruling party responsible for state administration? The representative of the ruling party is Han Dong-hoon, and the president and the representative of the ruling party are doing it. They're my two heads. At a time when the two are in conflict, it is the president's will that some lawmakers in the party raise such issues. And I think it's too irresponsible.

◆Bae Seung-hee: Wouldn't it be a big problem if representative Choo Mi-ae wrote this on the party bulletin board when she was president of Moon Jae In? The leader of the ruling party is the president of the ruling party.

◇ Jung Sung-ho: That's right. If that's the case, wouldn't I have heard that CEO Han Dong-hoon is the last prosecutor? Isn't it a question for the family to ask firmly? That's right. If you say so, it comes out quickly from the investigation, and this was a bit excessive because there was freedom to express political opinions for family members and themselves. In fact, this is how it was done. You just have to apologize because you were angry at the time. Actually, what's the big deal? In fact, how much do people and we criticize the president?

◆ Bae Seung-hee: But why don't we do it?

◇Jung Sung-ho: So I don't know. However, from the standpoint of representative Lee Dae-han, I think there are some doubts about some so-called anti-Korean pro-Moon lawmakers or some kind of systematic conspiracy above them.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. I see. That's all for today. This has been Jung Sung-ho of the Democratic Party of Korea. Thank you.

◇Sung-ho Jung: Thank you.