- Former President Yoon's sentence invalidating election victory? Only first instance... Supreme Court legal judgment is complex
- President Lee already received Supreme Court judgment... Democratic Party is the bigger concern
- Returning election subsidies? Not at the stage to prepare or worry right now
- Go Seong-guk claiming agreement on NEC special counsel is collusion? Plainly false
- Jang Dong-hyeok also agreed... Read agreement in my office and said "That's good"
- Jang Dong-hyeok has never officially opposed a recount
- Parliamentary investigation committee, NEC, and special counsel should recount together
- Recount shouldn't be opposed to prolong street politics
- Didn't attend right-to-vote rally, but fully sympathize with pain of 20s and 30s generation
- Can't look only at hard-line party members... Must expand support base
- Gathering lawmakers' views on Jang Dong-hyeok's position, but decision rests with him
- Accepted Kwon Young-jin's apology, hope for lenience... Song Eon-seog's opinion is also important
- Supplementary investigation authority must be recognized for cases referred by judicial police officers
■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00 AM)
■ Date: July 28, 2026 (Tue)
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Jeong Jeom-sig, Floor Leader of the People Power Party
Kim Tae-hyun: I think I have a lot of questions to ask today. As announced, we have Jeong Jeom-sig, floor leader of the People Power Party, with us today. Floor leader, hello.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Nice to meet you.
Kim Tae-hyun: Floor leader, this is your first time here. Yesterday, there was bad news for the People Power Party, so I should ask about that first. Former President Yoon Suk Yeol was found guilty in the first instance for violating the Election Act. It is not final yet, as it's only the first-instance ruling, but if confirmed, the party will have to return 39.7 billion won in election expenses.
Jeong Jeom-sig: That is correct.
Kim Tae-hyun: Are you preparing any measures regarding this?
Jeong Jeom-sig: Well, first of all, I view that as merely a first-instance ruling. The second and third instances remain, and when it comes to the charge of publishing false information, the Supreme Court's legal interpretation is actually very complex. Therefore, we need to wait and see. What we are saying is this.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: The Democratic Party said yesterday that we must pay it back immediately, but fundamentally, the Democratic Party has bigger issues. That is because regarding President Lee Jae-myung's statements back when he was a candidate, he was found guilty in the first instance, not guilty in the second instance, and then the Supreme Court remanded the case with a finding tantamount to guilt. So while the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on former President Yoon Suk Yeol, it has already ruled on President Lee Jae-myung's publication of false information. Once trials resume, this is a matter that could be confirmed as guilty at any time, so I would tell the Democratic Party to worry about themselves first. And to the courts, I would like to say that they should resume the five trials involving President Lee Jae-myung as soon as possible.
Kim Tae-hyun: Looking at past reports, when Kim Min-seok was senior supreme council member, he remarked on this issue that forcing political parties to reimburse funds might be excessive and that they were considering a constitutional lawsuit. Is the People Power Party also thinking about filing a constitutional lawsuit on this, believing that it might be unreasonable for the party to reimburse subsidies over candidate misconduct?
Jeong Jeom-sig: First, we need to consider the structure of election expense burdens. In other parliamentary or local elections, the candidate bears all election costs.
Kim Tae-hyun: That is true.
Jeong Jeom-sig: However, in presidential elections, political parties bear the costs. Since the system requires the party that received reimbursement to pay it back, the nature of this is somewhat different from former Senior Supreme Council Member Kim Min-seok's past argument.
Kim Tae-hyun: In any case, since the Supreme Court ruling is still pending, the People Power Party is not currently making preparations or worrying about how to pay the money back.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Yes. We are not at that stage yet.
Kim Tae-hyun: I see. Recently, the ruling and opposition parties reached an agreement on a special counsel for the National Election Commission (NEC). Negotiations on parliamentary leadership organ formation were also concluded.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Yes.
Kim Tae-hyun: However, YouTuber Go Seong-guk is known to be very close to Party Leader Jang Dong-hyeok. Go Seong-guk wrote on Facebook: "This is an immoral collusion. The aim of this collusion is to remove Jang Dong-hyeok. Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sig should resign." Have you seen this?
Jeong Jeom-sig: Yes. I didn't go to Facebook directly myself, but a person claiming to be a party member sent me a screenshot of the Facebook post. First of all, I must say this is completely absurd and plainly false. That is because the agreement reached regarding the NEC special counsel—the so-called right-to-vote infringement special counsel—was only about how the special counsel recommendation procedure would work. The remaining matters, such as investigative agency scope and investigation targets, were agreed to be handled through further agreement by the 30th.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Furthermore, regarding the recommendation procedure, our senior deputy floor leader had already reported to Leader Jang Dong-hyeok prior to reaching agreement, explaining that opinion convergence had been reached in this manner and that an agreement was going to be made.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: After being reported to, and after the written agreement was drafted, Leader Jang Dong-hyeok personally read the agreement document in my office before the general meeting of lawmakers. He left after saying, "That turned out well." So for Go Seong-guk to claim what he did, his logical premise would have to be that Jeong Jeom-sig made an immoral collusion to eliminate Jang Dong-hyeok, and Jang Dong-hyeok agreed to the aim of that collusion. Does such a logic make any sense? The reason we agreed to the special counsel recommendation process is that during negotiations, we called for a special counsel recommended by our party, while the Democratic Party said they could never accept that. So at minimum, we felt we needed a safeguard ensuring that candidates recommended to the President would be agreeable to our opposition party. Thus, we agreed that a recommendation committee with equal representation from both parties would recommend two candidates by consensus, and if consensus failed, ask the recommending bodies multiple times for re-recommendations. Ultimately, we established a mechanism guaranteeing objectivity and fairness so that figures acceptable to the opposition would be recommended to the President. Recognizing that such a procedure, though imperfect, was set up, we reached an agreement that Leader Jang agreed to. Therefore, the argument that this was my collusion to remove Leader Jang simply holds no ground.
Kim Tae-hyun: Do you think forces supporting Leader Jang believe prolonging this situation is advantageous, and therefore oppose resolving the situation early by quickly agreeing with the Democratic Party to wrap up the special counsel, state affairs inspection, and recount? Dragging out this phase might be beneficial to Leader Jang.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Surely that cannot be the case. However, if one understands the pain of the 20s and 30s generation protesting day and night at Olympic Park against infringements on voting rights, one could not possibly conclude that this situation should be dragged on. In any case, isn't uncovering the truth the most important thing?
Kim Tae-hyun: That's right.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Uncovering the truth and ensuring that anyone who deserves punishment receives appropriate penalties—that is what we should focus on. Who could agree with dragging out this situation just because it might benefit a specific individual? I believe those people wouldn't think that way either.
Kim Tae-hyun: Floor leader, if a recount is conducted, whether there was actual fraud or not would be revealed quickly. Looking at reports, the People Power Party seems opposed; news articles noted that Representative Yoon Sang-hyun, the committee chair, favored a recount, but it couldn't proceed because Leader Jang Dong-hyeok opposed it.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Leader Jang Dong-hyeok has never officially stated that he opposes a recount. However, a significant number of lawmakers on our party's special investigation committee expressed opposition, feeling that since a special counsel appointment is pending, conducting a recount led by the NEC with parliamentary committee members participating might invalidate the special counsel's investigation or pose a risk of evidence tampering. That is why agreement was not reached and progress was delayed.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: We have requested the Democratic Party to extend the period for the parliamentary investigation. The Democratic Party is also considering that possibility to some extent. Ultimately, we believe the most desirable approach is to proceed with seizing ballot boxes and conducting a recount jointly involving the parliamentary investigation committee members from both parties, the NEC, and the special counsel.
Kim Tae-hyun: If the recount is delayed, the Olympic Park situation will drag on, and if Leader Jang's outdoor political activities are prolonged, it doesn't seem helpful for the People Power Party in the long run. Wouldn't an early resolution be better?
Jeong Jeom-sig: If the introduction of a special counsel were to fall through, then doing it through the parliamentary investigation committee would be most desirable. But since there has been progress regarding the special counsel, the idea was to resolve the recount issue together with the special counsel, not an attempt to prolong street politics.
Kim Tae-hyun: Floor leader, you haven't been to Olympic Park even once, right?
Jeong Jeom-sig: That is correct.
Kim Tae-hyun: Was there a strategic or political rationale behind that?
Jeong Jeom-sig: Rather than political calculation, the National Assembly schedule was extremely busy. Instead, right after taking office, when there were concerns that the police might attempt an entry, I asked our floor leadership members to head over, and they did go to the site. Even though I didn't go personally, I fully empathize with the pain and desperate cries of the young adults in their 20s and 30s protesting the infringement on voting rights.
Kim Tae-hyun: You don't have plans to go there in the future either, right?
Jeong Jeom-sig: For now, that is the case, but if circumstances change, I can go at any time. I don't practice politics with a mindset of refusing to go for a specific reason.
Kim Tae-hyun: Speaking of the party leader, Leader Jang Dong-hyeok mentioned a "party member-centered party," while you, floor leader, mentioned a "people-centered party." Are those two completely different concepts—party member-centered versus people-centered?
Jeong Jeom-sig: Well, I don't think a party member-centered party and a people-centered party are entirely different concepts. In a modern political party, who would disagree that party members are the owners of the party? However, if we engage in politics and formulate policies solely targeting hard-line party members, our party's total membership is around 1 million. How can we conduct politics looking only at those 1 million people? Ultimately, for our party to win in the capital region, we must expand our support base to moderates, the capital area, and the youth. In that context, I talked about a people-centered party in the sense that we must enact policies and conduct politics that resonate with the general public.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: At the same time, we offer this criticism: The Democratic Party taking such a hard-line stance on issues like abolishing supplementary investigation powers—a stance contrary to public sentiment—is a competition to gain the support of hard-line members to win their national convention. That is precisely why we criticize politics focused solely on hard-line members under the banner of a "party member-centered party." From the perspective that we should not do that, I advocated for a "people-centered party."
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: I don't think what the party leader means by "party member-centered" and "people-centered" are necessarily incompatible.
Kim Tae-hyun: So you mean moderates, the capital region, and the youth are key.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Yes.
Kim Tae-hyun: To build a broader consensus among the public, as far as I know, the current convention rule is 8 to 2—80% party members, 20% public opinion poll. Do you think adjusting those numbers, say to 5 to 5, is necessary?
Jeong Jeom-sig: Looking at our party constitution revisions, it was previously 7 to 3—70% party members, 30% general public. After that, it went to 100% party members, and then shifted back to 8 to 2.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: However, we currently apply a 5 to 5 ratio for selecting candidates for public office.
Kim Tae-hyun: For primaries.
Jeong Jeom-sig: That's for general primaries. But because I believe the procedure for selecting public office candidates and leadership structures should differ slightly, whether to revert the current 8 to 2 structure to the previous 7 to 3 is a matter we should comprehensively review after gathering opinions from our lawmakers and party members.
Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Speaking of Party Leader Jang Dong-hyeok, a Hankook Ilbo report this morning noted that four-term lawmaker Kim Sang-hoon appeared on a Daegu regional YouTube channel and said, "Senior lawmakers will gather next week for an extended tea time, during which whether Leader Jang Dong-hyeok stays or steps down will be discussed." Also, five-term lawmaker Kwon Young-se recently officially called for Leader Jang's resignation. This is a very hot topic; what is your position on this, floor leader?
Jeong Jeom-sig: Well, I only heard about Representative Kim making those remarks upon arriving at SBS today. So I wondered if such a plan was made. Ultimately, since taking office, I have also been gathering lawmakers' opinions regarding Leader Jang Dong-hyeok's position, and I understand Representative Kim's remarks in the sense that senior lawmakers are meeting independently to try to find a solution as part of that process.
Kim Tae-hyun: Is it ultimately a situation that depends on Leader Jang Dong-hyeok's decision?
Jeong Jeom-sig: Currently, whether party leadership stays or resigns ultimately depends on individual decisions or our party's situation—
Kim Tae-hyun: Collapse of the Supreme Council.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Yes. Since four of the five elected Supreme Council members would have to resign, I believe it is a matter for Leader Jang to decide after examining various circumstances whether he will continue forward or step down.
Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Floor leader, regarding Representative Kwon Young-jin: Media reports yesterday said that at the Supreme Council meeting, you did not make remarks as you were an affected party. But yesterday morning, you were quoted making strong statements like, "This is a matter of dignity for a conservative party." The Supreme Council concluded by referring him to the disciplinary committee and recommending voluntary resignation. In the afternoon, reports quoted you as saying, "I personally accepted Representative Kwon Young-jin's apology." What is your stance on Representative Kwon Young-jin's discipline?
Jeong Jeom-sig: First, regarding yesterday's Supreme Council meeting where that issue was discussed, I did not refrain from speaking; I did not attend the meeting.
Kim Tae-hyun: You didn't attend at all?
Jeong Jeom-sig: After I stepped out, such discussions took place, which I later learned through news reports and separate briefings. So it wasn't that I attended and stayed silent. Fundamentally, on a personal level, he posted an apology in our group Telegram chat, and before that, expressed his apology through another lawmaker while notifying me in advance that he would post an apology in the chat. Yesterday, Representative Kwon officially visited my office to apologize, and I accepted it. So personally, those private issues have all been resolved.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: However, regarding the Supreme Council mentioning severe discipline such as recommending voluntary party resignation and the Ethics Committee initiating disciplinary proceedings, personally I hope for lenience. How could I say as floor leader that a member of our parliamentary group should be forced to leave the party or be expelled? Since I accepted the apology, my personal view is that I hope he is treated with lenience.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: However, once the Ethics Committee initiates disciplinary procedures, it is difficult for me to comment on that. But if I am asked for my opinion as a victim, I intend to express my views fully. Furthermore, beyond my case, he also cursed and grabbed former Floor Leader Song Eon-seog by the collar when he tried to intervene while he was grabbing my collar, so former Floor Leader Song's intention is also important.
Kim Tae-hyun: In the case of a sitting lawmaker, expelling them would ultimately require passing a general meeting of lawmakers, right?
Jeong Jeom-sig: That is correct.
Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Let me ask one policy question. They say the supplementary investigation issue will be handled at the plenary session on the 30th. Even filibustering has its limits. What alternative are you preparing?
Jeong Jeom-sig: First, I heard the Democratic Party called on us to present an alternative. Since the Democratic Party has already set a firm stance on the prosecution's right to initiate investigations, even if we yield on that point first, I believe supplementary investigation authority must be recognized at least for cases referred by judicial police officers.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Because if supplementary investigation authority is not recognized even for referred cases, prosecutors will end up acting merely as preliminary judges, only reviewing records to decide whether an indictment is possible or not. If we end up in that situation where prosecutors are only granted the right to request supplementary investigations as argued by the Democratic Party, the harm from problems seen since the prosecution-police reform—such as case-passing, delays in case processing, and inadequate victim remedy procedures—will ultimately fall on the public.
Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
Jeong Jeom-sig: I believe supplementary investigation authority must be granted at least for referred cases, and I expect our lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee's first subcommittee to make that argument.
Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. We will end here for today. That was Jeong Jeom-sig, floor leader of the People Power Party. Thank you.
Jeong Jeom-sig: Thank you.
The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing in full or quoting this interview,
please state the channel name and program title as shown below.
[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.