Home > Opinion > Columns

The ‘one minute' of Roh Moo-hyun the probe missed

Published: 30 Apr. 2026, 00:02

Kim Seung-hyun

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Evidence in the inquiry unfolded like a detective story: drinking gatherings in secluded spaces, covert recordings suspected of coaxing testimony and an unseen hand altering words in transcripts. The clues seemed to point in one direction. The alleged “fabricated indictment” case could have developed like a mystery by Agatha Christie, inviting readers to piece together a puzzle.

Kim Sung-tae, former chairman of Ssangbangwool Group, answers lawmakers’ questions during a plenary session of a parliamentary special committee investigating allegations of fabricated indictments by political prosecutors under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration at the National Assembly on April 28. [LIM HYUN-DONG]

Reality, however, did not resolve so neatly. The comprehensive hearing on Tuesday, which marked the final stage of the parliamentary investigation, produced neither decisive evidence to corner a suspect nor a dramatic reversal to break down defenses. As accusations of “you are the culprit” grew louder, the room for escape appeared to widen.

Lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party (DP) of Korea seemed uneasy. While asserting that they had identified those responsible, they also appeared unconvinced. Former Ssangbangwool Group Chairman Kim Sung-tae, appearing as a witness for the first time, vented his frustration near midnight.

He said the situation resembled that under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration. When DP lawmakers pressed him on whether the $8 million Ssangbangwool sent to North Korea was not payment for then-Gyeonggi Gov. Lee Jae Myung’s visit but money tied to stock manipulation, Kim strongly pushed back. “Lawmakers should not do this,” he said. “A frog can be killed by a stone thrown carelessly.”

Kim’s testimony disrupted the narrative. He denied attending a so-called salmon drinking party and said his earlier description of prosecutors as “devils” did not imply a fabricated indictment. Rather, he explained, it reflected anger over an investigation in which colleagues were detained and even family affairs, including allegations of extramarital relationships, were exposed. Referring to Lee as “that person,” Kim said he had never met him, calling him a lifelong hero and expressing regret for causing harm. Although he suggested prosecutors may have focused on Lee, he acknowledged that, as a defendant in the same case, he was not in a position to judge whether the indictment had been fabricated.

Lawmakers who sought to move swiftly toward canceling charges against Lee found themselves losing momentum. Testimony became tainted, and even controversial exchanges between prosecutor Park Sang-yong and the lawyer of former Gyeonggi Vice Gov. Lee Hwa-young failed to function as a smoking gun. By not hearing the prosecutor’s position, lawmakers may have missed an opportunity to explain Lee’s case more convincingly to the public.

Criticism has also focused on the approach of the inquiry. Proceeding with an investigation that could influence ongoing trials and treating the possibility of canceling indictments through a special counsel as a given has raised concerns about political overreach. The contrast with past inquiries has become increasingly stark.

A widely circulated video, about one minute in length, captures former President Roh Moo-hyun as a first-term lawmaker during a 1988 parliamentary hearing on corruption under the Fifth Republic. In questioning the late Chung Ju-yung, founder and then chairman of Hyundai Group, Roh began by expressing respect for the witness’s achievements.

“I have always respected the ability, passion and experience of a business leader who has achieved such great success,” he said. “I also hope that what the witness says and does will serve as an example to the public. However, I hold the political view that it would be very unfortunate if the witness’s past conduct were taken for granted or if today’s testimony were glorified.” He added, “Since we may have different positions and views, I ask for your understanding if my questions differ from your thinking, and I ask that you answer sincerely.”

Roh Moo-hyun, then a lawmaker, questions a witness over corruption during a parliamentary hearing on Fifth Republic-era abuses in November 1988. His respectful yet sharp questioning at the hearing helped propel him into prominence and, later, the presidency. [JOONGANG ILBO]

The exchange suggested that the search for truth begins not with hostility or preconceptions but with persuasion and respect. While the current inquiry cannot be directly compared to that era, the purpose of such investigations remains the same: to serve the public interest.

Rushed and politically driven proceedings have made it harder to uncover the truth. Whether future trials or a special counsel investigation will clarify the facts remains uncertain. There are also concerns that further disputes over coercion or fabrication may arise. Roh's one minute, which once exemplified how to question in pursuit of truth, appears to have gone missing.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.