Part of the prosecution “recognizes the legitimacy of the investigation”
Possibility of self-restraint by the Democratic Party even if it is voted down again
“Request for a warrant for splitting up, will cause a headwind” counterargument
Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Reporter Han Soo-bin
When the motion for the arrest of Lee Jae-myeong, the head of the Democratic Party of Korea, was concluded with a “passable rejection,” the prospect that the prosecution could request an additional arrest warrant is raised.
Inside and outside the prosecution, there is a reaction that the prosecution has been recognized to some extent for the legitimacy of the investigation over the narrowly rejected motion for the arrest of Lee. In particular, it is noteworthy that there were more votes in favor (139 votes) than against (138 votes), and that a significant number of Democratic Party lawmakers did not vote against it. It contrasts with the fact that the motion for arrest of Democratic Party lawmaker Noh Woong-rae in December last year was rejected by an overwhelming majority.
There are also observations that the prosecution, which gained confidence in the collapse of the Democratic Party’s single line against the motion for arrest, could request an additional arrest warrant for Lee. Even if the arrest motion is rejected again in the National Assembly, the prosecution has nothing to lose as the controversy over the ‘bulletproof National Assembly’ and the Democratic Party’s self-restraint can only grow. Even if an arrest warrant is requested, the prosecution’s burden is reduced because the court does not immediately open the warrant review and determine whether or not the criminal charge is vindicated. However, there is also a counterargument that the ‘request for a warrant to split’ targeting the representative of the 1st opposition party may cause a headwind.
Regarding the suspicion of corruption in the development of Daejang-dong and Wirye New Town, the prosecution is considering prosecuting only some of the charges against Lee without detention first and then requesting an additional arrest warrant. Suspicion of the ‘42.8 billion agreement’ that was omitted from the previous arrest warrant charges, suspicion of development corruption in Jeongja-dong and Baekhyun-dong, suspicion of remittance to North Korea by Ssangbangwool Group, and suspicion of payment of attorney’s fees are mentioned as materials for the warrant request.
The variable is the investigation situation of the prosecution. In the case of the suspicion of the ‘42.8 billion agreement’, the statement of Mr. Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu Asset Management, is important, but Mr. Kim has maintained that the suspicion is groundless. The prosecution recently re-arrested Mr. Kim on charges of concealing criminal proceeds and is conducting an intense investigation. In other cases, such as the suspicion of remittances from the Ssangbangwool Group to North Korea, there are observations that it will be possible to request an arrest warrant only when Lee’s involvement is more clearly revealed.
