Will Lee Hwa-young’s ruling also be overturned?

Keum Tae-sup

The author is a former lawmaker and prosecutor. 

The official title of the recent parliamentary inquiry was the “National Assembly Investigation into Alleged Fabricated Indictments by Political Prosecutors Under the Yoon Suk Yeol Administration” (translated). Having worked as a legal professional for more than 30 years, I had never before encountered the term “fabricated indictment.”

The word “fabricated” implies something falsely created. While evidence may be fabricated or the contents of an indictment may prove untrue, the idea of an entirely fabricated indictment is difficult to comprehend. But the ruling Democratic Party (DP) continues to employ the unusual phrase for a reason. Under ordinary legal principles, if evidence is manipulated or charges are unfounded, the issue is corrected through court rulings or retrials. To justify the extraordinary step of withdrawing indictments sought by the ruling camp, President Lee Jae Myung’s cases must be portrayed as fundamentally different from ordinary prosecutions. The phrase “fabricated indictment” appears intended to create that distinction.

The DP’s logic is straightforward. Cases involving Lee, including the Ssangbangwool remittance case and the Daejang-dong development scandal, are described as politically motivated prosecutions orchestrated by prosecutors under the Yoon administration. According to the party, the parliamentary inquiry exposed flaws in those prosecutions and generated public consensus supporting the withdrawal of the indictments.

Whether the inquiry truly uncovered prosecutorial misconduct, let alone created broad public agreement, remains highly questionable. Even assuming that argument is correct, however, a deeper constitutional issue emerges. The National Assembly is effectively attempting to judge the validity of ongoing criminal cases and discuss canceling prosecutions already brought before the courts by prosecutors from the executive branch. That plainly conflicts with the principle of separation of powers.

Hard-line figures within the ruling camp dismiss such concerns. They argue that lawmakers, as representatives of the people, have every right to correct abuses of prosecutorial authority. But by that logic, lawmakers should also be allowed to indict suspects when prosecutors decline to do so. It is difficult not to feel dismay watching politicians advocate prosecutorial reform while displaying little understanding of the neutrality and objectivity required of prosecuting institutions.

Even if one accepts the ruling camp’s position, another problem arises. Correcting what they describe as fabricated indictments against Lee would eventually require not only canceling prosecutions but also challenging court rulings that have been handed down.

Consider the Ssangbangwool remittance case. It involves two separate issues: whether former Gyeonggi Vice Gov. Lee Hwa-young asked the Ssangbangwool Group to illegally send money to North Korea, and whether the president, then governor of Gyeonggi, either participated in or knew about the scheme sufficiently to bear criminal responsibility as an accomplice.

The first issue has already been resolved by a final Supreme Court ruling that found Lee Hwa-young guilty. Any withdrawal of charges could apply only to the second issue involving President Lee. But throughout the parliamentary inquiry, ruling party lawmakers repeatedly cast doubt on the first point as well. One example involved questioning whether Ri Ho-nam, identified as a North Korean operative, actually traveled to the Philippines to receive money from Ssangbangwool representatives. DP lawmakers insist public consensus now exists that this portion of the judgment was also flawed. If so, what follows? Would Lee Hwa-young’s conviction itself be canceled?

The Daejang-dong case presents a similar dilemma. It involves whether Kim Man-bae and Nam Wook conspired with Yoo Dong-gyu to inflict massive financial losses on Seongnam while securing enormous profits for themselves, constituting a breach of trust, and whether then-Seongnam Mayor Lee Jae Myung participated in or was aware of the scheme.

The first issue has already produced guilty verdicts at the trial court level. Nevertheless, DP lawmakers, particularly those who previously served as the president’s attorneys, continue challenging that conclusion. Lee Jae Myung himself once described the Daejang-dong project as “the greatest achievement since Dangun” and said, “I designed this project.” That makes it difficult to isolate criticism solely to the allegations involving him personally. But attacking already adjudicated portions of the case inevitably raises the question of overturning court decisions themselves. Would the rulings against Kim Man-bae and Nam Wook also be canceled?

If the DP crosses that line and begins considering cancellations of judicial rulings, two additional concerns emerge. First, parliamentary investigations may eventually summon not only prosecutors but also judges, demanding their explanations for certain rulings. Whether such a scenario is normal should be obvious to anyone with basic common sense.

Second, there remains the practical issue of how such cancellations would occur. The ruling camp clearly does not intend to pursue retrials, whose legal requirements are extremely strict. A presidential pardon by the president would also carry enormous political risks.

Recently, during a television debate, I heard an intriguing remark from a senior DP lawmaker who is also a former legal professional. When I asked whether Lee Hwa-young’s conviction might be canceled, he responded that serious human rights violations could potentially be remedied through constitutional complaints against court rulings. Only then did I begin to understand what some advocates may truly intend by introducing a constitutional complaint system as part of judicial reform.

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.