[Joo Young-jin's News Briefing]

When quoting this interview, please clearly credit the program name "SBS Joo Young-jin's News Briefing." The copyright belongs to SBS.

■ Broadcast: SBS "Joo Young-jin's News Briefing" Monday–Friday (14:00–15:20)
■ Host: Anchor Joo Young-jin
■ Guest: Representative Kwak Kyu-taek of the People Power Party
--------------------------------------------

● Interview with People Power Party Representative Kwak Kyu-taek

"Rather than abolishing 'political prosecutors,' we must listen to what kind of system victims want"
"Returning to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee only sets the stage for a one-sided vote... It would make us accomplices"
"The DP should hand over the Legislation and Judiciary Committee chairmanship to the opposition and proceed with deliberation"
"The DP is sacrificing an important system for its national convention"
"Abuse of prosecutorial power occurs in only 1% of cases... The diagnosis of the prosecution's problems and the countermeasures are completely wrong"
"DP lawmakers who advocate for allowing supplementary investigative power are courageous"
"An implicit lull within the PPP... A situation where internal strife is being restrained"
"Disciplining over political issues is an overreach"
"Many believe there is no one to take over even if we immediately transition to an emergency response committee system"
"I believe the right time will come for Han Dong-hoon's reinstatement" 
"The Jeong Ui-han case, the police investigation was highly flawed... The police seemed to be walking on eggshells around the government and the ruling party"

---

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: You rarely showed that kind of expression when appearing on "Joo Young-jin's News Briefing," but you looked quite stern in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. We have Representative Kwak Kyu-taek of the People Power Party here with us. Welcome. Why were you so worked up yesterday?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: I think that was an incident from a few days ago. It is a situation where one cannot help but be outraged that the National Assembly is unilaterally holding a Legislation and Judiciary Committee meeting to push through such an important issue as the abolition of supplementary investigative power without any agreement between the ruling and opposition parties. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Regarding this issue of supplementary investigative power, the general sentiment of the Democratic Party is complete abolition. Their view is that if any form of investigative power, even a partial one, is left to the prosecution, there is a very high probability that the prosecution will become a monster again, and they believe this is the historical lesson we have learned. It also seems true that a significant portion of the public agrees with this. On the other hand, the People Power Party maintains the opposite stance, arguing that supplementary investigative power must be maintained so that not a single innocent victim is created. What is the People Power Party's argument and rationale?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Well, supplementary investigative power is not an issue that should be decided based on political positions. If you think about whether the public would prefer a prosecutor to directly investigate a case when it is sent from the police to the prosecution for indictment, or if they would prefer the prosecutor to just send it back to the police with a request for supplementary investigation, I think the answer is obvious. As shown in recent public opinion polls, the majority of the public believes it is right for prosecutors to directly conduct supplementary investigations. At our People Power Party forum today, a victim of the past "Busan roundhouse kick" case spoke, saying that from a victim's perspective, they want a system where, regardless of the competence of the police or prosecution, someone can look at the same case from a different angle and investigate a bit more diligently. Those words really resonated with me. Therefore, we should not view this politically as a tool to eliminate "political prosecutors," but rather listen more closely to which system the suspects or victims—who use or are subject to the judicial system—actually want. To put it simply, if a patient goes to a hospital with a stomach ache and the first hospital diagnoses it as simple enteritis, but a larger hospital suggests it might be colon cancer, the patient would want the doctor who suspected colon cancer to directly run tests, treat them, and perform surgery if necessary. They wouldn't want that doctor to tell them to go back to the original hospital to get tested again. I believe a state system should always be designed with the convenience of the citizens who use it in mind. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Of course, it is meaningful for the People Power Party to voice these concerns through separate forums, as it delivers your message to the public. However, the actual arena for this discussion is the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, isn't it? The People Power Party is currently boycotting the National Assembly, claiming that the Democratic Party is running the legislature unilaterally. But wouldn't returning to the committee, discussing the issue, and conveying the PPP's stance—which you believe represents the public's voice—be the right politics for the people, rather than just raising your voice from the outside? How would you respond to this?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: I think you can find the answer by recalling how the Legislation and Judiciary Committee was run during the first two years of the 22nd National Assembly. The Democratic Party insisted that they must hold the committee chairmanship, and currently, Representative Seo Young-kyo is serving as the chair. Numerically, 12 out of the 18 committee members belong to the pan-ruling bloc. The remaining six or so are our committee members, and even if they go in and shout, as you saw earlier, it ultimately only serves to set the stage for them to say, "We have heard the opposition's voice, so we will now proceed to a vote." That is why I believe holding forums like the PPP's today and explaining our stance to the media is a better way to inform the public. If we enter the committee and participate in a meeting run unilaterally with such overwhelming numbers, we would end up becoming accomplices to the passage of this unreasonable law. Rather than doing that, the People Power Party's position is that we should postpone this rushed, unilateral processing of the bill in the committee, return the committee chairmanship to the opposition party, and then engage in deep deliberation and discussion.

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: In your view, why is the Democratic Party pushing for the complete abolition of supplementary investigative power? Of course, even within the Democratic Party, some lawmakers have proposed separate bills to maintain supplementary investigative power in exceptional cases. However, the overall atmosphere is toward complete and total abolition. Why do you think the Democratic Party is sticking to such a hardline stance? I am sure you have thought about this a lot. 

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Looking at the history of the Democratic Party, for about 20 years since the presidency of Roh Moo-hyun, they have rallied their party around the fight against the prosecution and the goal of dismantling it. In a way, the Democratic Party's most successful stepping stone has been prosecution-bashing and prosecution-killing. Therefore, completely eliminating prosecutorial investigation by abolishing even supplementary investigative power is something their hardline supporters strongly desire, so I believe political calculations played a significant role. Even Democratic Party Leader Lee Jae-myung and former Prime Minister Kim Min-seok originally held the position that some level of supplementary investigation by the prosecution might be necessary. However, as the national convention approached and candidate Jung Chung-rae brought up the abolition of supplementary investigative power as an issue, they ended up sacrificing this important system just to neutralize that issue. I believe changing a national system for the sake of a party convention is putting the cart before the horse. So, rather than trying to reach a conclusion on this issue before the national convention, they should hold the convention as planned and continue discussing such an important matter with more deliberation. That is my view. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Another point to consider here is that you are a former prosecutor. Some people say that the reason the Prosecution Service is being abolished is ultimately due to the investigations by the special investigation units. They investigated former presidents and leading presidential candidates while wielding absolute prosecutorial power, and according to the Democratic Party's claims, they even fabricated non-existent facts and manipulated evidence to influence public opinion, effectively rigging presidential election results. Because of these problematic investigations, the Prosecution Service is now being relegated to history, and not even a shred of investigative power can be given to such prosecutors. Many people likely agree with this view. Looking at these aspects, while we know that prosecutors in the criminal divisions are working harder than anyone behind the scenes, there is a clear perspective that this is a self-inflicted consequence for prosecutors. What would you say to that? 

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Regarding past investigations into political circles and political figures, those who were investigated or indicted naturally have no choice but to point the finger at the prosecution. If so, one of two things will happen. Once the prosecution completely loses its investigative power, either complaints against the police will continue to rise, or investigations into politicians will cease to exist in South Korea. I believe one of these two phenomena will occur. In the past, when the prosecution conducted certain special investigations or targeted politicians, there was a lot of criticism, and indeed some things were done wrong. However, to address this institutionally, we created the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and pushed through the complete deprivation of the prosecution's investigative power.

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Right, the complete deprivation of prosecutorial investigative power. 

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Yes. But there has been no time spent looking back on whether those measures were actually effective in preventing such abuses by the prosecution. Instead, because of them, the dissatisfaction of those involved in 99% of ordinary livelihood-related cases has grown immensely. Since the deprivation of prosecutorial investigative power in 2020, when a complainant or accuser receives a decision of no suspicion or non-indictment from the police and comes to the prosecution asking, "Please investigate my case again," the only thing a prosecutor can do is request the police to conduct a supplementary investigation again. In such cases, crime victims, complainants, and accusers cannot understand it. They ask, "Why does the prosecutor keep telling me to go back to the police when I am dissatisfied with the police investigation and am asking the prosecution to investigate?" This is actually the case for almost 99% of all cases. Meanwhile, cases where excessive investigation or abuse of prosecutorial power was an issue accounted for only about 1% of all cases. With the CIO established and systems introduced to prevent prosecutors from initiating investigations just to prevent that 1%, the right way forward is to make good use of the current system. Abolishing even supplementary investigations for ordinary livelihood cases? I believe the diagnosis of the problem and the countermeasure are completely wrong. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Some view the loss of the prosecution's right to initiate investigations as a major step forward in prosecutorial reform. Nevertheless, there is a clear voice within the Democratic Party that not even a single letter of investigative power should be left to the prosecution. In this situation, where the People Power Party's demand to maintain supplementary investigative power conflicts with the DP's stance, any compromise or agreement would mean that neither side's argument is fully accepted. Where do you think the point of compromise or agreement lies?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: I do not think it is right to classify cases and allow supplementary investigations for some while banning them for others. Every case handled by the police is extremely important to the parties involved. Therefore, for cases sent to the prosecution with a recommendation for indictment, it is only natural to supplement the investigation of the suspect if there are areas that need supplementing, and then proceed with the indictment. Even if the police decide not to indict, if a crime victim, complainant, or accuser who is dissatisfied files an objection, the most desirable direction is to allow the prosecution to directly conduct a supplementary investigation. I understand that some Democratic Party lawmakers have recently proposed measures to supplement this, and I think they are very courageous. They must have agonized over it deeply. In fact, there are many lawmakers in the Democratic Party who are former legal professionals or prosecutors, but they cannot speak out right now because they are swayed by their hardline supporters. However, anyone with even a little practical knowledge and legal experience would agree that the supplementary investigative power held by prosecutors is not dangerous, but rather absolutely necessary for the public.

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Understood. I hope that once the People Power Party returns to the National Assembly, we will see the ruling and opposition parties engage in fierce debate in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee over the supplementary investigative power issue with the public at the center, and find some common ground. Since you are here representing the People Power Party, I must ask you about PPP internal affairs. Representative Jang Dong-hyeok recently mentioned that if there are, say, 20 lawmakers who constantly try to shake up the party, it would be better off without them. This has sparked speculation that "disciplinary politics" is beginning in earnest. What are your thoughts on this?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: The current atmosphere within the party seems to be in a sort of implicit lull. We are trying not to create internal conflict, as it is clear from the numbers that the PPP's approval rating drops whenever internal strife is exposed. So, everyone seems to be refraining from saying things that could trigger internal division. However, I believe it is healthy for a political party to have diverse opinions competing actively, whether they are directed at the party leader or at specific policies. The reason we criticize the giant ruling Democratic Party is that they are swayed by their hardline supporters and cannot make common-sense decisions, isn't it? The same goes for us. The People Power Party should not rely on a fraction of hardline supporters and look only in that direction. To fully reflect the perspective of the entire public and the moderates, diverse opinions must emerge. They say democracy is originally noisy. But saying that anyone who opposes the party leadership will be disciplined—well, although my political career is short, I think trying to solve political issues through disciplinary action is a bit of an overreach. I hope the party leadership will put more effort into gathering these diverse opinions to move toward a direction of change.

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Do you think the reconstruction of the conservative bloc is possible under the current party leadership, or should the current leadership step aside to create a vacuum so that an emergency response committee can take responsibility and rebuild the conservative bloc? What is your opinion? 

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: I think there are pros and cons. However, with critical issues currently at hand, such as the infringement on voting rights and the abolition of supplementary investigative power, I question whether changing the party leadership to an emergency committee under these circumstances would truly show the public a changing party. To be honest, we lawmakers talk among ourselves and ask, "Then who is going to do it?" There is actually no suitable person right now. So... 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: If there is no one, the floor leader designates someone, right? 

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Right. That is why, rather than jumping to a conclusion right now, I think we need to monitor public opinion and future policy debates with the Democratic Party, and if the right time comes, we should consider the possibility of such a change. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Busan is your constituency, right?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: That is correct. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: How do Busan citizens view Representative Han Dong-hoon? Do they think of him as an independent lawmaker or a People Power Party lawmaker?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: It is half and half. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Half and half?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: It is quite interesting. Since he was the former leader of the People Power Party, some think of him as being on the conservative side anyway, while others call him a traitor to the party. Opinions are diverse in Busan. When I visit my constituency, people on one side talk about the former, and people on the other side talk about the latter. I believe it is my job to listen to all of these views and convey them to the party.

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Not long ago, Representative Ahn Cheol-soo held a press conference saying, "I oppose Representative Han Dong-hoon's reinstatement. Do not even come near our party." What are your thoughts, Representative Kwak, on the issue of Han Dong-hoon's reinstatement? 

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Well, it is quite difficult for one politician to say whether another politician's reinstatement is right or wrong, but I believe an appropriate time and opportunity will come. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Just wait a bit?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Yes.

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Just wait, no need to rush?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Yes, that is correct. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: For conservative reconstruction, there is Reform Party Representative Lee Jun-seok. However, there is currently a significant dispute over who is responsible for the controversy surrounding the fabricated attack by former candidate Jeong Ui-han, with demands like "When did you find out? Confess." They are trading attacks, with claims like, "He was a PPP aide, and I know what someone in the PPP did to former candidate Jeong Ui-han." What is your take on this?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: That issue must be addressed. While it is an issue for the Reform Party, I believe the police investigation into the case was highly flawed. It was an extremely serious incident. A candidate for Busan mayor staged a fake terror attack. Yet, the police had already grasped this around mid-May.

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Before the election. 

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: They uncovered it, investigated it, and reportedly even obtained a confession before the election. Under those circumstances, it was a serious matter that immediately warranted a search and seizure or an arrest warrant. If the investigation had proceeded then and the truth had been revealed, he would have naturally been disqualified as a Busan mayoral candidate beforehand. However, the police kept it quiet so that no one would know, and only processed the case as soon as the election was over. I suspect this was a situation where the police were walking on eggshells around the government and the ruling party. I believe this is yet another piece of evidence showing that we must not give the police the authority to close all investigations in the future. 

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: Understood. You are heading back to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee for the People Power Party, right?

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: That is correct.

▷ [Anchor] Joo Young-jin: This was an interview with Representative Kwak Kyu-taek of the People Power Party. Thank you for speaking with us today. 

▶ [Interview] Kwak Kyu-taek / PPP Representative: Thank you. 

※ For more details, please watch the video.