Claim of Just "Codifying Precedent" Denied by Closed-Door Meeting Minutes

[Anchor]

Regarding the last-minute inclusion of the expansion of grounds for dismissing indictments, lawmakers from the Democratic Party claim it merely reflects existing Supreme Court precedents and contains nothing new. However, closed-door National Assembly meeting minutes obtained by our team reveal a rather different story.

Reporter Ha Jeongyeon has the details.



[Reporter]

The Democratic Party's amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act adds two new grounds to the existing six for courts to issue a dismissal of indictment: "serious illegal investigation" and "prosecutorial indictment that significantly deviates from the discretionary power of prosecution."

Their public explanation has been that this is merely "codifying precedents" and "nothing new."

[Kim Seung-won / Democratic Party Lawmaker: There is nothing new, nor is it ambiguous. It is merely codifying the legal principles accumulated through judicial rulings.]

This is from the National Assembly meeting minutes obtained by SBS.

During the 3rd Legislation and Judiciary Committee Bill Review Subcommittee meeting on the 15th, attended only by lawmakers from the ruling-aligned bloc, Subcommittee Chairman Kim Seung-won of the Democratic Party addressed the proposal to include "illegal investigation" as a ground for dismissing indictments. He stated, "If there is illegality in the investigation process, wouldn't it be possible to simply rule for a dismissal of indictment without having to enter the merits?" and added, "A significant change in trials is expected."

This is quite far from his public remarks claiming there is "nothing new."

Is the explanation that it merely "codifies precedents" accurate?

Supreme Court precedent defines the "deviation of prosecutorial discretionary power" as "cases where it is clear that the prosecutor exercised their right to prosecute arbitrarily, causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant."

At the 9th subcommittee meeting on the night of the 28th, when the amendment was voted on:

The Ministry of Justice raised concerns, stating, "At the very least, the phrase 'due to arbitrary judgment' should be added in light of current precedents."

In response, Democratic Party Lawmaker Kim Yong-min said, "We are not making laws according to precedent," and added, "Indicating it just like this is sufficient."

Earlier, during the 7th subcommittee meeting on the 24th, regarding abstract provisions in the amendment such as "serious" or "significantly," even a Democratic Party lawmaker suggested, "Let's make the legal text specific and revise the expression." The chief specialist of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee also proposed refining the text to "an indictment that substantially disadvantages the defendant," but these suggestions were not reflected in the final amendment.

(Video Editing: Park Sun-su, Design: Kim Min-young, Park Chun-woong)

---

[Anchor]

Political Department Reporter Ha Jeongyeon, who covered this story, is here with us in the studio.

Q. Why has the "expansion of grounds for dismissing indictments" belatedly become controversial?

[Reporter Ha Jeongyeon: The Democratic Party proposed an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act on the 9th, which is also called the Democratic Party TF bill. That bill did not contain any related content regarding the expansion of grounds for dismissing indictments. The expansion of grounds for dismissing indictments was a matter contained in a separate bill initiated by some ruling-aligned lawmakers. However, we exclusively reported that this content was included in the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee subcommittee's resolution text released yesterday morning, meaning it became known to the public just before the legislative process was finalized. The National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee subcommittee meetings themselves are closed to the public, and the meeting minutes are also released belatedly. In addition, lawmakers from the opposition People Power Party did not attend the subcommittee, so the discussions themselves were not widely known to the outside. Criticisms have been raised that there was insufficient social debate. Also, the three subcommittee meeting minutes we analyzed span over 170 pages in total, but the actual content related to the dismissal of indictments amounted to less than 10 pages.]

Q. Is there a sharp contrast in positions between the ruling and opposition parties over the "expansion of grounds for dismissing indictments"?

[Reporter Ha Jeongyeon: Let us listen to today's remarks by People Power Party Floor Leader Jung Jeom-sik and Legislation and Judiciary Committee Chairperson Seo Young-kyo of the Democratic Party.]

[Jung Jeom-sik / People Power Party Floor Leader: This is a political backside deal between a President trying to eliminate trials for his own crimes and the hardliners of the Democratic Party trying to eliminate the prosecution.]

[Seo Young-kyo / Democratic Party Lawmaker: That is nonsense. It is absurd. They are doing right now the exact same thing that prosecutors used to do.]

[Reporter Ha Jeongyeon: (The ruling party is strongly denying it, right?) That is correct. The Democratic Party cites examples such as the dismissal of indictment ruling in the 2021 Seoul public official espionage fabrication case, arguing that this is a safety device to protect the public from illegal investigations or abuse of prosecutorial power by a politically motivated prosecution. On the other hand, the People Power Party criticizes this as a so-called "indictment withdrawal season 2," intended to make courts dismiss indictments in the currently suspended trials involving President Lee Jae-myung. The Democratic Party vehemently denies any connection to President Lee's trial, but because the People Power Party suspects this is an attempt to create a detour called dismissal of indictment in case withdrawing the indictment through a special counsel or prosecution becomes difficult, the confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties is expected to intensify.]
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.