- Applied for filibuster against today's passage of 'Criminal Procedure Act Revision'... Public opinion is key
- Adding 'grounds for dismissal of indictment'? Unfair deal to block Lee's veto
- Who determines 'serious illegal investigation'… Dictatorship through law
- Rushed through out of fear veto might be exercised after party convention
- Abolish first and discuss complementary measures later? Abnormal
- Cho Jeong-sik's 'consecutive-term constitutional amendment' remark? Fate of pro-Lee Assembly Speaker
- President's inner mind is consecutive terms anytime... Must personally clarify position
- Ruling party might do anything to break amendment blockade line if urgent
- Kim Yong-beom asking for trouble with remarks... Hold accountable for ETF and dismiss
- Lee's double-standard real estate policy directly hits Seoul and capital region

■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Politics Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00)
■ Date: July 30, 2026 (Thu)
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Rep. Na Kyung-won (People Power Party)

[Kim Tae-hyun]: You have been raising your voice in criticism against the government and ruling party lately. We are joined by Representative Na Kyung-won of the People Power Party. Hello, Assemblywoman.

[Na Kyung-won]: Hello.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Assemblywoman, there are so many pressing issues these days.

[Na Kyung-won]: I've been very busy. There are many things to speak out about, and we also need to hold forums to discuss what we should do going forward, as well as introduce legislation. It has been quite busy.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Where should we start?

[Na Kyung-won]: But isn't the situation so abnormal right now?

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Right now?

[Na Kyung-won]: Yes. Is the country normal? It is abnormal.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Shall we start with the topic of supplementary investigation rights?

[Na Kyung-won]: Sure.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: The People Power Party is planning a filibuster today. Will you be participating as well?

[Na Kyung-won]: I have also registered to join the filibuster.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Who is the first speaker?

[Na Kyung-won]: Considering seniority, Representative Joo Ho-young, a six-term lawmaker, applied. I expect Representative Joo will likely be the first speaker. Normally, the ranking member of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee goes first, but they will probably yield to a six-term lawmaker.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Is Representative Han Dong-hoon included as well?

[Na Kyung-won]: Since he is not in our party, if he participates, it would be through a different procedure.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: I heard he did apply.

[Na Kyung-won]: I do not know for sure either.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Ahead of today's plenary session where the Criminal Procedure Act amendment is set to pass, news broke yesterday afternoon—and covered extensively in this morning's newspapers—that not only supplementary investigation rights but also 'grounds for dismissal of indictment' were added. What do you think is the biggest problem?

[Na Kyung-won]: Isn't this a completely unfair and ugly deal? It is an ugly deal, an ugly deal.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: An ugly deal?

[Na Kyung-won]: What did they say before? Figures like Kim Ou-joon and the faction aligned with Jung Chung-rae in the Democratic Party argued that supplementary investigation rights were being left with prosecutors just to get the charges against the President dropped. They claimed keeping supplementary investigation rights in exchange for withdrawing charges was a deal. But now, to prevent the President from exercising his veto on the bill, they created a strange clause allowing the court to dismiss indictments without prosecutors withdrawing charges, making another ugly deal trading dismissal of indictment for the abolition of supplementary investigation rights.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: I see.

[Na Kyung-won]: So while they previously called maintaining supplementary investigation rights in return for dropping charges an ugly deal, this time the Democratic Party inserted 'abolition of supplementary investigation rights' and 'grounds for dismissal of indictment' to make another ugly deal, didn't they?

[Kim Tae-hyun]: So, for instance, you mean Democratic Party hardliners made a bill completely abolishing supplementary investigation rights despite the President wanting to keep them, and to prevent the President from vetoing it, they inserted grounds for dismissal of indictment that the President would favor into the Criminal Procedure Act to strike a bargain with the President?

[Na Kyung-won]: That is the only way I can see it. Although the President hasn't done well in general, his statements regarding supplementary investigation rights have at least been reasonable. He mentioned that this would ultimately harm the public and raised concerns about accountability rather than blindly pushing forward based on conviction. Yet, by pushing for complete abolition, they added these grounds so the President would not exercise his veto.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Is that so?

[Na Kyung-won]: Take a look at the grounds for dismissal of indictment. Does that make sense? Previously, dismissal of indictment was applied when a defendant passed away, making trial impossible, or when prosecution violated legal provisions.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.

[Na Kyung-won]: But these are completely discretionary grounds. "Significant deviation of prosecutorial discretion"—how do you even define "significant"? And what was the other one?

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Illegal investigation.

[Na Kyung-won]: "Serious illegal investigation." Who determines this? Can a law really be made like this? This is an abnormal country. Using law to exercise dictatorship—that is a dictatorial state.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: So you believe that even if this passes, the probability of the President exercising his veto power is zero. Is that right?

[Na Kyung-won]: They slipped this in, but in the end, I believe public opinion matters most. There are 15 days to exercise a presidential veto. I think the reason they are rushing this through today is precisely because of that. If the President were to veto it before the party convention, it seems unlikely he could do so before then. They fear he might actually exercise his veto after the party convention if given enough time.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: So that's why they are pushing it through today?

[Na Kyung-won]: That's why I think they are pushing it through. No matter how you calculate the dates, doing this during the summer lull... Frankly, it's vacation season right now, and market chaos has erupted around stock ETFs. Yet the sole reason for rushing this through is to prevent a presidential veto and lock in its full legal effect before the party convention.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: But a filibuster can block it for just one day.

[Na Kyung-won]: Right, barely.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: But what option does the People Power Party have?

[Na Kyung-won]: Ultimately, I believe it comes down to public opinion. I think public opinion remains crucial starting right now. Recent polls show support for maintaining supplementary investigation rights is two to three times higher. Seeing this, if the public pays attention and raises its voice, wouldn't the President be able to exercise his veto? Therefore, we believe our most important task starting today is demanding the President exercise his veto power.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Do you expect opposition to this law to grow further, especially now that the addition of grounds for dismissal of indictment became known yesterday?

[Na Kyung-won]: That's how I see it. If the President ultimately does not exercise his veto contrary to his past statements, he will face further criticism that he refrained from doing so solely to erase his own alleged crimes. Furthermore, while abolishing supplementary investigation rights, they claimed they would establish various measures for seven major crimes affecting vulnerable groups, yet they say they will discuss those measures "later."

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Handling them through a special bill, as they say.

[Na Kyung-won]: "Let's do it later." Mandatory referral for all cases of domestic violence and child abuse is already stipulated in law, but they say to discuss the rest later. Discuss the objection system later, too. What kind of legislation is this? Even if supplementary investigation rights were abolished after fully addressing all flaws, the public would still find it unacceptable, yet they want to abolish it first and discuss fixes later.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: When Rep. Seo Young-kyo, chair of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, appeared on the show yesterday, she said sufficient complementary measures are included, so the People Power Party won't have much to say even during a filibuster.

[Na Kyung-won]: Where are the complementary measures? They said they would discuss them later and haven't done a single thing. Rep. Seo Young-kyo's habit of just insisting on her point is the same as ever.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Understood. Recently, there have been controversial remarks from the ruling camp. National Assembly Speaker Cho Jeong-sik—though officially no longer part of the ruling party since he formally stepped out of party affiliation—said that a constitutional amendment allowing consecutive terms depends on the people's choice. This remark caused a stir. Yesterday, Presidential Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik appeared and said the President has no intention of seeking consecutive terms, asking not to turn it into a political debate or drag the President into it. Do you think Speaker Cho made a slip of the tongue, or was there an intention behind it?

[Na Kyung-won]: Looking at the circumstances of Speaker Cho's remarks, when reporters asked him first, he couldn't flatly say consecutive terms are absolutely impossible. That is the fate of a pro-Lee National Assembly Speaker.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Is that so?

[Na Kyung-won]: Yes. That is the only way I see it. Under a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, consecutive terms are naturally impossible. However, from the presidential election until now, President Lee Jae-myung and his close aides have maintained that if it aligns with the public will and if the people desire it, constitutional amendment is possible, and even the provision barring such amendments from applying to the incumbent president could be revised according to the public will. Therefore, in his heart, I believe he thinks he can seek consecutive terms at any time.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: I see.

[Na Kyung-won]: No matter what Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik said, unless the President states it in his own voice—and if the President cleverly avoids addressing it—we can only view it as the President leaving open the possibility of consecutive terms in his mind.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: So inside the core of the ruling camp, there is still a vague expectation that it might be possible?

[Na Kyung-won]: That is naturally how it should be viewed.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: So to settle this, as you mentioned, unless the President returns from his trip and explicitly declares at a press conference that there will absolutely be no consecutive terms...

[Na Kyung-won]: The President must say those words. But the very fact that this is even a subject of controversy shows how abnormally the current ruling camp thinks. When our Constitution was established in 1987, why did we choose a single five-year term for the incumbent president? To ensure the single-term limit could not be easily altered, a clause was included stating that even if amended, it would not apply to the sitting president. Yet they claim even that can be changed through the public will. I see them as a group holding very abnormal thoughts.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: But Assemblywoman, hypothetically speaking, even if the President and ruling party leadership wanted to push for a consecutive-term amendment, it wouldn't be realistically possible because the People Power Party holds enough seats to block a constitutional amendment, right?

[Na Kyung-won]: It appears so for now, but who knows what the Democratic Party might do at any moment? The Democratic Party is a party capable of anything.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: It's not as if they can do something about the 107 lawmakers.

[Na Kyung-won]: For our part, we will continue pointing out these problems. Furthermore, the Democratic Party frequently does things beyond imagination. They alter fast-track bills and overcome filibusters. Looking at that, the Democratic Party is currently a party that stops at nothing. That is why we remain vigilant and continue to speak out.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Are you imagining and worrying that to break the constitutional amendment blockade line, they might poach individual lawmakers, or even seek to dissolve the People Power Party on grounds of unconstitutionality to crush the party?

[Na Kyung-won]: I won't go into specific details, but...

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Those are the only methods that come to mind.

[Na Kyung-won]: As I said, the Democratic Party does unimaginable things. Look at how they raised a fuss over dropping charges to erase the President's guilt, and now look at this Criminal Procedure Act revision with dismissal of indictment clauses. Is this a normal political party? Isn't it a party willing to do anything to achieve its goals? As for supplementary investigation rights, from the public's perspective, checks and balances are necessary in investigative power. How many facts have been uncovered by having prosecutors review police investigations? Pushing forward despite that demonstrates their obstinacy, compulsive mindset, and obsession with power. Seeing that, I believe they are indeed a party capable of doing anything.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: You mean they might do anything to break the constitutional amendment blockade line.

[Na Kyung-won]: If desperate, I believe they will do so.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Let's move to another issue. The stock market is tumbling rapidly right now. It dropped yesterday and the day before, and we don't know what will happen today. Many experts point to single-stock leveraged ETFs as one of the major causes. While there are other factors, they say supply and demand became distorted due to leveraged ETFs. Chief of Staff for Policy Kim Yong-beom said yesterday overseas during the presidential trip: "It's not solely due to single-stock ETFs; Korean investors have a dynamic trading pattern." What should be done?

[Na Kyung-won]: I have repeatedly raised the issue of the policy chief's responsibility, and this remark is truly asking for trouble, isn't it? It's asking for trouble. Isn't he blaming the citizens right now? Why were single-stock leveraged ETFs released so quickly in the first place? They rushed it through without even a single page of meeting minutes.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Really?

[Na Kyung-won]: Isn't Chief Kim Yong-beom identified as a key figure who played a role in that? Instead of apologizing for leading the situation to this point, he is blaming the public. I believe Chief Kim Yong-beom should have been dismissed swiftly early on.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Will the People Power Party officially demand his dismissal then?

[Na Kyung-won]: I understand that calls for his dismissal have already been raised extensively, and I personally demanded his dismissal early on. Since Chief Kim Yong-beom carries non-negligible responsibility not only for the stock market issue but also for various policy confusions, I believe he must be held accountable, even if resolving this issue immediately is difficult.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: But how can this be resolved? You cannot simply cancel products that have already been sold.

[Na Kyung-won]: Exactly. That is why Financial Services Commission Chairman Lee Eok-won belatedly talks about taking all the flak himself.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: He should have stopped it.

[Na Kyung-won]: That shows how serious this situation is. So while we must hold them accountable in the National Assembly, taking responsibility should be the first step.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: You are saying Policy Chief Kim Yong-beom should be dismissed.

[Na Kyung-won]: Yes.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Understood. Let's look at real estate. Recently on Facebook, you called the Lee Jae-myung administration's real estate policy extreme 'naelon-nambul'—not 'naeron-nambul' (double standards), but 'naelon' using 'loan'. What does 'naelon-nambul' mean?

[Na Kyung-won]: It means "loans are allowed for me, but not for others." Referring to the President selling his house through private financing.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: His house in Bundang.

[Na Kyung-won]: Yes.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: What problems do you see in the Lee Jae-myung administration's real estate policy?

[Na Kyung-won]: They announced they will unveil real estate tax measures on August 3. During the election, President Lee Jae-myung said he would never try to curb housing prices through taxes, yet here he comes again with taxes. They are repeating failed real estate policies. What is worse than before is that through bizarre methods unimaginable to ordinary citizens—like this double-standard loan policy—they pursue their private interests while maintaining regulatory and tax policies that allow loans for themselves but deny them to others.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Your constituency is Dongjak, correct?

[Na Kyung-won]: Yes.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Analysis shows that real estate sentiment was a major factor in Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon's victory last time. So do you expect sentiment among Seoul citizens toward the ruling camp to continue deteriorating?

[Na Kyung-won]: I think so. Real estate serves as a direct hit for Seoul and the capital area. In reality, the imbalance between supply and demand for real estate is most severe in the Seoul capital region, so this administration's policy ultimately burdens working-class citizens and residents in Seoul and the capital area.

[Kim Tae-hyun]: Understood, Assemblywoman. You voiced various criticisms regarding government policies today. We will conclude here today. That was Representative Na Kyung-won of the People Power Party. Thank you.

[Na Kyung-won]: Thank you.


The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing full transcripts or citing interviews,
please specify the channel and program name as shown below.

[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Politics Show]