Back to Former Prosecutors as 'Bodyguards'? Candidates Face Public Scrutiny

It was Sunday morning yesterday, October 25. Two names emerged from Cheong Wa Dae as candidates for the next minister of justice: Representatives Park Gyun-taek and Yang Bu-nam of the Democratic Party of Korea. A key Cheong Wa Dae official stated, "The candidates for minister of justice have been narrowed down to two, Representative Park and Representative Yang," adding, "The president is agonizing over the final choice between the two." It was also explained that both lawmakers are currently undergoing personnel vetting.

Typically, the selection of cabinet minister nominees is carried out under strict confidentiality, with Cheong Wa Dae conducting vetting and gathering public feedback primarily through the offices of the senior presidential secretaries for civil affairs and political affairs. Only after this process is complete and the president decides on the final nominee does the presidential chief of staff make an official announcement. This time, however, Cheong Wa Dae went as far as confirming the names of the two contenders and publicly disclosing to the media that they were being vetted. This appears in effect to be a move to gauge public opinion regarding the candidates ahead of the president's final choice. Having suffered the withdrawal of previous nominee Kim Seung-won due to vetting failures, this is also interpreted as leaving open the possibility of reconsidering the selection from scratch if reactions from core supporters or the public are negative.

Who then are these two individuals, and what have they accomplished within the Democratic Party?

Representative Park Gyun-taek is a native of Gwangju who graduated from Seoul National University College of Law. He completed the Judicial Research and Training Institute's 21st class. He served as the first director general of the Prosecution Bureau at the Ministry of Justice under the Moon Jae-in administration before serving as the head of the Gwangju High Prosecutors' Office. In 2022, he served as special legal advisor to then Democratic Party Leader Lee Jae-myung, and acted as his defense counsel in cases such as the preferential development allegations in Baekhyeon-dong and the Seongnam FC donation scandal. During the investigation into allegations surrounding Ssangbangwool's illicit money transfers to North Korea, he accompanied Lee to his questioning by prosecutors and also took part in his pre-trial detention warrant hearing.

Representative Yang Bu-nam hails from Damyang, South Jeolla Province, and graduated from Chonnam National University Law School. He is from the 22nd class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute. During his time in the prosecution service, he was categorized as a special investigations specialist prosecutor with extensive experience in high-profile probes. He served as chief of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office, head of the Criminal Affairs Bureau at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, and head of the Busan High Prosecutors' Office. During the 2022 presidential election, he led the public vetting and legal support team for candidate Lee Jae-myung's campaign, and later, as chair of the Democratic Party's Legal Affairs Committee, oversaw the party's coordinated response to cases surrounding Lee. In August 2024, during the race for the Democratic Party's Gwangju city chapter chair, he used the campaign slogan "Lee Jae-myung's Bodyguard."

Looking at their commonalities, both are first-term lawmakers representing constituencies in the Honam region and former heads of high prosecutors' offices. They are also similar in having served as legal aides well-versed in the president's legal challenges. Both of them also joined the "Lawmakers' Group for Dropping Indictments in President Lee Jae-myung's Cases and Pushing for a Parliamentary Investigation," which was launched in February.

What draws particular attention regarding candidates to lead the Ministry of Justice—known in the American context as the Department of Justice—is their stance on dropping the indictments in the president's cases. On this issue, many voices, not only in the opposition but also among hardliners within the ruling bloc, argue that it is unacceptable. It is a thorny matter compounded by the normative principle that a president, like any ordinary citizen, should not serve as a judge in their own case, alongside criticisms from within the progressive camp that doing so would effectively hand over the next general and presidential elections to the opposition.

Representative Park Gyun-taek appeared on MBC Radio on August 26 and argued that it was appropriate to include a clause granting authority to drop indictments in the special counsel bill regarding fabricated indictments that the Democratic Party was pushing at the time. His point was that forcing a person to continue facing trial simply because they are the president or a close associate of the president—even when it has been confirmed that an indictment was flawed and maintaining prosecution is problematic—amounts to a human rights violation. On October 5, on KBC Gwangju Broadcasting, he used even stronger language: "If it has come to light that an investigation was flawed and an indictment was mistaken, yet trials continue without correction, how is that any different from gangsters?"

Representative Yang Bu-nam's position is not much different. On October 23, on KBS Radio, he argued that if grounds justifying the withdrawal of charges—such as abuse of prosecutorial power or illegal investigations—are confirmed, there is no reason to treat the president's case differently. "If the requirements are met, charges should naturally be dropped, not because it is the president's case, but even if it were a case involving any ordinary citizen," he said. Representative Yang was also a co-sponsor of the special counsel bill on fabricated indictments previously introduced by the Democratic Party.

Based on their past positions, major media outlets pointed out issues of potential conflict of interest, political neutrality, and fairness in editorials and columns today. The minister of justice is tasked with directing and supervising justice administration, including the Public Prosecution Service. The minister also holds statutory authority to direct specific cases through the prosecutor general, who heads the Public Prosecution Service. In that the justice minister could potentially have a hand in dropping the indictments in the president's cases, appointing politicians who actively advocate for dropping charges inevitably sparks concerns and criticism.

The sheer number of high-ranking appointments given to figures who previously defended the president in individual cases or participated in his legal responses has already sparked controversy. Within the government, such figures include the minister of government legislation, the head of the Planning and Coordination Office at the National Intelligence Service, the governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, and the ambassador to the United Nations; at Cheong Wa Dae, three of the four secretary positions under the senior presidential secretary for civil affairs were filled by the president's former defense lawyers. In light of the adage that personnel appointments are everything and that appointments send a message, the prominent roles given to these figures—combined with the backgrounds of the justice minister candidates—make it hard to readily nod along with the president's inaugural pledge to become a "president for all."

Cheong Wa Dae is also keeping these criticisms in mind. That is likely why it went public with the candidates to run them through a court of public opinion. A ruling bloc official familiar with Cheong Wa Dae affairs explained, "Criticism regarding the issue of dropping charges is basically being kept in mind, and it is not as though they made the two names public without knowing that," adding, "It can be thought of as floating a trial balloon to test the waters." Another ruling bloc official questioned, "Could one even drop the charges just because they become justice minister?" and added, "My understanding is that they took into account the necessary qualifications for a justice minister, such as a shared perspective on prosecution reform, understanding of justice administration, and the early stabilization of the new criminal justice system." There is also a somewhat harsher narrative: that candidates with high-ranking prosecution backgrounds from within the ruling party came under consideration because the administration was looking for figures capable of forcefully handling hardliners like Lim Eun-jeong, head of the Gwangju Major Crimes Investigation Office, who strongly rebelled against Kim Ji-yong, head of the Major Crimes Investigation Office, branding him a "pro-Yoon prosecutor and prosecutorial supremacist."

Following the withdrawal of justice minister nominee Kim Seung-won, who stepped down on September 19, Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik, who also serves as head of Cheong Wa Dae's personnel committee, tendered his resignation to take overall responsibility. Around that time, President Lee took the blame for falling approval ratings upon himself and announced that he would overhaul the personnel appointment system. In a press briefing on October 19, he confided his struggles, saying, "Among many tasks, personnel appointments seem truly difficult. Finding a justice minister also has its difficult aspects."

Following the past personnel missteps and the deliberations of the president and Cheong Wa Dae, the choice of Representatives Park Gyun-taek and Yang Bu-nam reads as a second-best option. When narrowing the personnel pool with various virtues and criteria, the remaining candidates inevitably become extremely limited. Yet, focusing so heavily on the individuals raises a question that has been overlooked: What should a minister of justice do well following the comprehensive overhaul of the criminal justice system—including the complete separation of investigation and indictment, the dissolution of the prosecution service, and the establishment of the Major Crimes Investigation Office? Will criminal suspects be brought to trial more swiftly and accurately than before under the new system? Will relief and rights restoration for crime victims become more thorough? While public vetting of the two candidates will unfold from various angles, we must keep in mind how suitable they are for such roles, beyond mere political stances and factional logic. (End)

※