KOR-Returning campaign expenses? Will humbly take responsibility upon final ruling
-Lack of fairness between ruling and opposition... President Lee's trial must resume
-No election law revision... Both ruling and opposition parties must fulfill their responsibility
-Apology for the 2nd anniversary of martial law? Can be done, but endless repetition must stop
-Special counsel bill on fabricated indictment is clear preferential treatment for the president
-Ruling party recommending special counsel? Conflict of interest... If innocent, go to court
-Not a withdrawal of indictment? Pulling the wool over people's eyes while pushing the bill
-'Lee's YouTube' highly inappropriate... Still wasting national strength on X
-President joining YouTube that intensifies factional politics
-Possibility of conservative unity? Need shared goals during election phase
■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00 AM)
■ Date: Thursday, November 5, 2026
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Park Hyung-soo, People Power Party lawmaker (PPP ranking member on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee)
[Kim Tae-hyun] Former President Yoon Suk Yeol has been handed a sentence invalidating his election in the appellate court trial on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party of Korea aims to pass a special counsel bill on fabricated indictments at today's plenary session. Let us hear the position of the People Power Party regarding these matters. We are connected by phone with People Power Party lawmaker Park Hyung-soo, the opposition ranking member on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Hello, lawmaker.
[Park Hyung-soo] Hello. This is lawmaker Park Hyung-soo.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Lawmaker, yesterday, former President Yoon Suk Yeol was handed a sentence invalidating his election in the appellate court regarding election law violations. How did you view yesterday's ruling?
[Park Hyung-soo] I believe that the court's judgment should be respected. However, because the legal defense team announced its intention to appeal to the Supreme Court, the final decision will be made there. If there are no particular legal defects in the Supreme Court, it appears this ruling will be finalized. I think we must humbly accept that. However, regarding the part about introducing former police chief Yoon Woo-jin, former chief prosecutor Yoon Dae-jin stated that he was the one who made the introduction, but the court does not seem to have accepted that. I think that part needs to be contested in the Supreme Court.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Respecting the ruling. And you are also a legal professional yourself.
[Park Hyung-soo] Yes.
[Kim Tae-hyun] You projected that it is highly likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court as is. If that happens, the People Power Party will have to return 39.7 billion won in campaign funds. Are you preparing any realistic countermeasures right now?
[Park Hyung-soo] Well, I think talking about preparing countermeasures for that is somewhat nonsensical. In any case, if the ruling is finalized and we have to return the campaign expenses accordingly, the party will have to take responsibility.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] However, one more point I would like to make regarding this issue is that there is an imbalance of fairness between the ruling and opposition parties. For the former president, an appellate ruling was handed down on the Public Official Election Act, and if the Supreme Court upholds it later, we will even have to consider returning campaign funds. But for the sitting president, the Supreme Court remanded the case, essentially remanding it with a finding of guilt, yet the trial is currently suspended at the High Court. Considering the crime and sentencing, I view the Public Official Election Act violation regarding the sitting president as more grave, as it directly influenced the election. Then naturally, a sentence invalidating the election should be handed down there as well, leading to the return of campaign expenses. But because that trial is halted, it is not proceeding at all. Therefore, I want to point out that resuming that trial is rightful and fair.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Lawmaker, as you mentioned, the election law case of former President Yoon Suk Yeol ruled on yesterday and the currently suspended election law case of President Lee Jae-myung share similar key issues, do they not?
[Park Hyung-soo] That is correct.
[Kim Tae-hyun] That is why back then, the Democratic Party raised the idea of revising this election law. I remember the People Power Party opposed it at that time. Do you have any intention now to negotiate with the Democratic Party again on such points and attempt an election law revision? Both sides are facing almost similar situations and similar issues.
[Park Hyung-soo] In order to avoid responsibility, for both ruling and opposition parties to collude to revise a law that is already stipulated, I believe that is unthinkable. We must bear the responsibility together. I believe that is our duty to the public.
[Kim Tae-hyun] So you are saying, "We will take responsibility, so the Democratic Party must also take responsibility once guilt is finalized"?
[Park Hyung-soo] That is right.
[Kim Tae-hyun] But some criticize that the People Power Party has offered no official stance or apology regarding this election law issue. The media has pointed out that since Yoon Suk Yeol was elected president as the PPP candidate, the party that nominated him should also bear responsibility and offer an apology if a sentence invalidating the election has been handed down. What are your thoughts on that?
[Park Hyung-soo] That falls under the theory of infinite responsibility. Again, it is awkward to keep bringing up the opposing party, but did the Democratic Party ever apologize when their case was remanded with a finding of guilt under the Public Official Election Act? Instead, they attacked the Supreme Court and are making a fuss about impeaching the Chief Justice. In that sense, I think the Democratic Party's attitude is improper. And since we did not do well either, I believe we must also consider apologizing to the public.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] But having a political party apologize for every single action taken by every member of the party is also unthinkable, isn't it? There are directly involved parties, and it is right that the individuals who committed the offense apologize and take responsibility before the people.
[Kim Tae-hyun] In the same context, in about a month, it will mark the second anniversary of the emergency martial law declaration. There was an exclusive report by the Chosun Ilbo stating that Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sik would make an apology to the nation on the upcoming December 3, separate from Representative Jang Dong-hyeok. After that, the floor leader's office issued a correction saying nothing had been decided yet. What is the atmosphere within the party right now?
[Park Hyung-soo] That is right. As far as I know regarding that issue, the floor leader responded to media questions asking what would be done on December 3 by saying he was considering various options, and it seems to have been reported as if an apology was being considered. Of course, it is an undeniable fact that our side was wrong regarding the December 3 martial law, and we have apologized for it. Furthermore, if the public demands it going forward, I believe further apologies are necessary.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] However, if this apology is repeatedly exploited, asking "Why didn't you do it this time?" or "What level of apology is it this time?", endlessly repeating this, then until when and for how many years must we apologize for it to be considered a proper apology? Our floor leader already apologized last year, and earlier this year, an apology statement was also issued under the names of all lawmakers. Constantly pressing this makes me concerned that someone might be trying to cause division within our party. Therefore, regarding an apology, I would say we will respond appropriately in accordance with the demands of the public.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Then lawmaker, personally, is your position that if there is public demand, we should do it again on December 3 of this year? Or are you asking, "Why do it again when we already did it last year?"
[Park Hyung-soo] We could do it. It was not something done well. We cannot simply move past December 3 as if nothing happened, can we?
[Kim Tae-hyun] Really? So personally, you believe it is right to do so? That it can be done.
[Park Hyung-soo] If I express my personal opinion on this here, it could differ from or align with the position of the party leadership or floor leadership. That is why I am speaking in principled terms.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. The special counsel bill on fabricated indictments passed the Legislation and Judiciary Committee yesterday, lawmaker. From the People Power Party's perspective, which part do you see as the biggest problem?
[Park Hyung-soo] Everything is a problem. I believe this bill is unthinkable. The first and biggest issue is that this is special preferential treatment for the president. Has there ever been a criminal defendant whose indictment was dropped in this manner? That in itself is already an enormous privilege for the president.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] All of our citizens claim to be wronged when on trial. Defendants standing trial say they are unfairly accused. But have prosecutors ever dropped an indictment just because someone asked them to do so? They argued guilt or innocence in court and struggled to obtain an acquittal. The president must go through that exact same procedure. Moreover, the president claims to be innocent, right? Saying no crime was committed. Then naturally, going to court to receive an acquittal is the rightful course of action. Yet they want to investigate whether it was a fabricated indictment or not and steer it toward dropping charges. This is clear preferential treatment for the president.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] And this is also an obvious conflict of interest. The president is supposed to appoint the special prosecutor who will judge whether the indictment of that case was proper or improper. On top of that, the ruling party is even designated to recommend that candidate. Previously, during the insurrection special counsel, our right to recommend a special prosecutor was stripped away simply because the president belonged to our party. If the Democratic Party applies that exact same logic now, they should be excluded as well. They should not recommend either. This is an explicit conflict of interest, and these are matters currently undergoing trial. Deciding whether an indictment was rightful or flawed regarding matters on trial is the court's job. But conducting this special counsel ends up interfering with what the court does.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] In many respects, in short, this is an absurd bill designed solely to save one person, the president, destroying the separation of powers and the rule of law.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Lawmaker, Seo Young-kyo, chair of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, said yesterday from the Democratic Party's side that people should not call this an "indictment withdrawal special counsel" because they removed the authority allowing the special prosecutor to withdraw indictments, claiming it is not about dropping charges. Do you believe that they will eventually build up toward that and head in that direction?
[Park Hyung-soo] It is entirely pulling the wool over people's eyes. In a previous press conference, the president mentioned wanting to remove the clause that allows the special counsel to withdraw indictments. So they took that clause out. Even with that clause removed, the possibility of dropping charges still remains. Every citizen knows this by now. If a special counsel conducts an investigation and finds it was a fabricated indictment, where does the authority to withdraw an indictment lie?
[Kim Tae-hyun] The Prosecution Agency.
[Park Hyung-soo] The prosecution, which is currently the Prosecution Agency, right? It lies with the Prosecution Agency. Then the Prosecution Agency can withdraw it, saying the special counsel concluded it was a fabricated indictment and wrongfully indicted, so charges will be dropped. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice can direct the Prosecution Agency regarding specific cases. That entire pathway remains open. If there is genuinely no intention to withdraw the indictment, they should not pursue this bill at all, and the president should at least declare that no form of charge dismissal should happen or exist regarding his case. Then the public would trust the sincerity of this special counsel bill. But pushing forward without doing so is pulling the wool over people's eyes. People naturally think they are trying to withdraw indictments through another cunning method.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Some have also raised this issue: the prosecution currently does not have investigative authority, yet the bill includes dispatching prosecutors to this special counsel team and granting them investigative powers.
[Park Hyung-soo] That is right. During yesterday's committee meeting, our side, including myself, pointed this out repeatedly. This in itself is a privilege. Why does it become a privilege? Why include prosecutors as dispatch personnel when they currently have no investigative authority whatsoever? They even slated around 30 prosecutors and are adjusting the numbers. Fundamentally, under the revised criminal justice system, prosecutors are barred from investigating ordinary citizens. But when asked why prosecutors are allowed to investigate in this case, they claimed it was included for investigative efficiency. Then, for investigative efficiency for the president, prosecutors holding both investigation and indictment authorities can investigate, while for ordinary citizens, prosecutors without investigative powers only maintain indictments and police handle investigations. Isn't this another privilege for the president? We thoroughly pointed this out.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. Lawmaker, let us shift topics. The president writes frequently on X, formerly Twitter. But he is reportedly launching YouTube. Called 'Y', its first broadcast is scheduled for tonight at 9:00 PM. How do you view the president doing YouTube?
[Park Hyung-soo] I think it is highly inappropriate. Even now, a considerable amount of national strength is being wasted unnecessarily over social media such as YouTube or X. But if he also engages in YouTube on top of that, won't he just speak in a way that continuously indoctrinates the public with his unilateral thoughts? That will only intensify the situation further. Moreover, I believe current YouTube politics is one of the factors greatly aggravating factional politics on both sides without exception. Doing a YouTube broadcast will inevitably force remarks that appeal to hardcore supporters on both sides. The president should instead implement policies or conduct his own actions in a direction that reduces and eliminates the harms of such factional politics. But doing this inevitably leads to remarks mindful of extreme, hardcore supporters on both sides. Therefore, looking at our politics as a whole, I believe this is undesirable.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Lawmaker, lastly, let me ask one internal party issue. Looking at yesterday's JoongAng Ilbo media forum, Party Leader Jang Dong-hyeok, Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, and Lawmaker Han Dong-hoon gathered in one place. Discussions about conservative unity are emerging in the People Power Party, with various scenarios being discussed. How do you think it is most appropriate to proceed?
[Park Hyung-soo] Gathering in one place and doing something on the same day is a coincidence. It is just a coincidence.
[Kim Tae-hyun] That was yesterday, yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] Because the media wrote articles spotlighting attention on it, they even reported things like what was done during several hours, how many people went where, and which lawmakers attended. Some lawmakers felt uncomfortable with such views and chose not to go. So in any case, this should not be viewed as a show of force.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] Our party's fundamental goal, as I mentioned earlier, is that everyone likely thinks it is crucial to formulate a strategy that allows us to genuinely win against the Democratic Party, which is destroying democracy and the rule of law through special counsels to drop indictments and moves to impeach the Chief Justice. Accordingly, we should determine what stage we reach before the general election. Then, one year after the general election, with the presidential election two years later—the general election is in 2028 and the presidential election is in 2030—we should decide what to do at that stage. I believe we must think strategically.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] Therefore, if there are elements that could exacerbate internal division within our party before the general election, we must be vigilant against them. Then, in the presidential election phase, there will be a need to open everything up and move forward together. At that point, we should do so.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Park Hyung-soo] So while I cannot cautiously say at this point who we should align with, at what stage, and how, I believe we must also approach this solidarity strategically in line with those goals.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. That was People Power Party lawmaker Park Hyung-soo. Thank you.
The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing the full text or citing the interview in reporting,
please state the channel name and the exact program name as shown below.
[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.
Video News
Video News
Video News
Video News