[Anchor]

Regarding the last-minute inclusion of the expansion of grounds for dismissing indictments, Democratic Party lawmakers claim it merely reflects existing Supreme Court precedents and nothing new. However, closed-door National Assembly meeting minutes obtained by SBS reveal a quite 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 grounds under which courts must render a dismissal of indictment: "serious unlawful investigation" and "indictment exceeding prosecutorial discretion."

Public explanations have maintained that this is merely "codifying precedents" and contains "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.]

These are the National Assembly meeting minutes obtained by SBS.

During the third subcommittee meeting for bill review by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 15th, attended only by ruling-bloc lawmakers, Subcommittee Chairman Kim Seung-won of the Democratic Party addressed the inclusion of "unlawful investigation" as a ground for dismissing an indictment. He stated, "If there are illegalities in the investigation process, wouldn't it be possible to simply rule for a dismissal of indictment without needing to enter into the merits of the case?" adding, "Significant changes in trials are expected."

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

Are claims that this merely "codified precedents" accurate?

Supreme Court precedents define "exceeding prosecutorial discretion" as cases where "prosecutors exercise their indictment authority arbitrarily, resulting in obvious substantive disadvantages 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 'through arbitrary judgment' should be added in light of current precedents."

In response, Democratic Party Lawmaker Kim Yong-min said, "We are not making laws strictly according to precedents," and asserted, "Listing 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 us make the legal text more concrete and revise the expression." The chief specialist of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee also proposed refining the legal text to "an indictment that causes substantive disadvantage to 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 desk reporter Ha Jeongyeon, who covered this story, is here with us in the studio.

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

[Ha Jeongyeon: The Democratic Party introduced an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act on the 9th, which is also called the Democratic Party TF bill. That bill contained absolutely no related content regarding the expansion of grounds for dismissing indictments. The expansion was originally included in a separate bill sponsored by some pan-ruling bloc lawmakers. However, we exclusively reported yesterday morning that this content was included in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee subcommittee's voting bill made public, meaning it became known to the public just before the legislative process concluded. Because the Legislation and Judiciary Committee subcommittee itself is closed-door and the meeting minutes are released belatedly, and furthermore, because lawmakers from the opposition People Power Party did not participate in the subcommittee, discussions were not widely known to the outside. Criticisms have been raised that there was insufficient social public debate. Additionally, the three subcommittee meeting minutes we analyzed span over 170 pages in total, but the actual content concerning the dismissal of indictment accounted for less than 10 pages.]

Q. Are the ruling and opposition parties showing starkly contrasting stances over the expansion of grounds for dismissing indictments?

[Ha Jeongyeon: Let us listen to the remarks made today by Floor Leader Jung Jum-sik of the People Power Party and Chairperson Seo Young-kyo of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, who belongs to the Democratic Party.]

[Jung Jum-sik / People Power Party Floor Leader: This is a political behind-the-scenes deal between the President, who is trying to eliminate his own criminal trials, and the hardliners of the Democratic Party, who are trying to eliminate the prosecution.]

[Seo Young-kyo / Democratic Party Lawmaker: That is nonsense. It is absurd. They are repeating the exact same behavior that prosecutors used to engage in.]

[Ha Jeongyeon: (The ruling party is strongly denying this, correct?) That is correct. The Democratic Party points to past examples such as the dismissal of the indictment ruling in the Seoul City spy fabrication case back in 2021, arguing that this is a safety net to protect citizens from unlawful investigations and abuse of indictment authority by politically motivated prosecutors. On the People Power Party side, they criticize this as a so-called "Indictment Cancellation Season 2" aimed at forcing courts to dismiss indictments for ongoing trials related to President Lee Jae-myung. While the Democratic Party vehemently denies any connection to President Lee's trial, the People Power Party suspects that this is intended to create a workaround called dismissal of indictment in case cancelling indictments through special counsels or the prosecution becomes difficult. Consequently, the confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties is expected to intensify.]